Create Card With Tasks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a card and task checklist items, which is transactional, but it does not disclose whether the operation is atomic, what side effects occur on failure, whether existing checklist behavior is replaced, or any permission/authorization requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a necessary clarification about how task names are supplied. It is concise while still being informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, the schema already defines required fields and types, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, the description does not explain the roles of listId and name, does not distinguish this tool from the create_card plus task-creation alternatives, and lacks usage guidance. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the tasks parameter as a list of strings. It adds no meaning for listId, name, or description, all of which remain explained only by their property names. Given that there are 4 parameters and the description addresses only one, the compensation is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a card with task checklist items.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_card (card only) and batch_create_tasks (tasks only), because it signals the combined operation of creating both the card and its task checklist. The second sentence, 'Provide task names as a list of strings,' further pins down the intended payload.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to create a card together with task checklist items. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_card plus create_task/batch_create_tasks, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an existing listId. This is adequate but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.