Create a work card

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (it mutates), which the description's 'Create' and 'mints a new record' wording confirms—no contradiction. The description adds the concurrency-safe stable ID behavior as useful context. However, as a creation tool with an output schema, it doesn't disclose return behavior or whether partial failures occur, and 100% schema coverage means the description carries moderate additional burden beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The operational guidance ('search first') is front-loaded and adds value. It could arguably mention the distinction from project_card_write explicitly, but the existing structure is tight and purposeful.

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?

Given a complex 16-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations present, the description covers the key operational concern (search-first to avoid duplicates, concurrency-safe ID). The nuanced project-declared values (area, axes) are delegated to project_workspace which is correctly referenced. It's reasonably complete for a create operation, though could note what the canonical-creation invariant ensures about duplicates.

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 100%, so the schema documents all 16 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description's comment about project_workspace for accepted area/axes values aligns with what schema already notes.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Create one canonical Work card') with a distinctive attribute ('concurrency-safe stable ID'). It distinguishes from project_card_write (which shares the 'create' domain) by emphasizing 'one canonical' card with concurrency safety. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from, leaving some differentiation implicit.

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 phrase 'Search first: this mints a new record rather than finding an existing one' provides explicit usage guidance, implying the agent should check for existing cards (via project_next or project_search) before calling create to avoid duplication. This gives clear context on when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly list excluded sibling tools, but the guidance is actionable.

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