Create a card

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, so the description's job is easier. It adds value by disclosing the internal batch call behavior and default backlog behavior. No contradictions; openWorldHint true is not elaborated but not contradicted.

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 well-structured with a header, bulleted Args list, and examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence provides value. No redundancy.

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 description thoroughly covers parameters and usage examples, but it omits the output/return value of the tool. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns (likely the created card). Side effects beyond the open world hint are not mentioned.

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 carries the full burden. It defines every parameter with type, purpose, constraints (e.g., label must be configured), and examples. This significantly adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Create a single card on a board' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_checklist and create_comment, as those are for different entities. The internal batch call detail adds specificity.

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 implicitly conveys when to use (to create a card) via its name and examples, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., for updating cards) or alternatives. There is no contrast with related tools like update_card or move_card.

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