Create document card from markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful rendering behaviors: tables convert to card tables, fenced code gains copy buttons, and H2 sections become show/hide reveals. It also mentions the two input modes (inline content or file path), but does not reveal side effects, permissions, or the automatic splitting/pagination behavior covered in the schema's 'part' parameter.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every clause earns its place — no filler, no restating of the title, and no redundant repetition of schema information.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with rich schema descriptions and an output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview. It covers the primary input modes and tool-specific behavior, while leaving parameter-level details to the schema. The only notable omission is the automatic part-splitting flow, but that is adequately documented in the 'part' parameter.

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 coverage is 89%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying that 'markdown' and 'path' are mutually exclusive alternatives ('Pass either the markdown content or the path'), which is not stated in the schema fields themselves. It also gives a concrete use case (walkthrough/guide) that helps ground the abstract parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Render a markdown document as one interactive card.' It then lists concrete transformations (tables become card tables, fenced code gets copy buttons, H2 sections fold into reveals) that clearly distinguish this from sibling card tools like create_table_card or create_code_tour_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 second sentence provides explicit usage context: 'Pass either the markdown content or the path of a markdown file generated earlier in the conversation (for example a walkthrough or guide) to plug it into the chat in one call.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and the benefit, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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