execute_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that results are returned, without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether card execution triggers mutations. The behavior beyond the basic action is opaque.

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 concise at 5 lines with clear Args and Returns sections. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'The ID of the card to execute' is implied), but overall efficient.

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?

With 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description leaves gaps: it doesn't hint at the result structure (tabular, paginated) or when to use this tool vs. siblings. It is minimally adequate but not fully informative.

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. It adds minimal value: 'card_id' is labeled as ID, 'parameters' are 'optional for card execution'—nearly repeating the schema types. No details on parameter structure or allowed values are given.

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 clearly states the verb 'execute', the resource 'saved Metabase question/card', and the outcome 'retrieve results'. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'execute_query' (raw SQL) and 'create_card'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'execute_card' over 'execute_query' or 'execute_mongodb_query', nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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