create_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that it creates a card and lists arguments, omitting any details about permissions, side effects, idempotency, return values, or error conditions. This is a minimal behavioral description.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, with a clear opening sentence and a compact parameter list. The argument list is somewhat redundant with the schema but does not unduly bloat the description.

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 the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description omits critical context such as when to use the tool, behavioral expectations, and accurate parameter requirements. The optional/required contradiction further reduces completeness, leaving the agent with ambiguous guidance.

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?

The description adds semantic meaning to parameters, such as 'assign the card to' for user_id and 'assign' for tag_ids, which goes beyond the bare schema titles. However, it explicitly labels user_id and tag_ids as optional, directly contradicting the input schema which requires all four parameters. This inaccuracy undermines the reliability of the parameter descriptions.

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 'Create a new card in BusinessMap' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (card), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_card and get_card_details. This is a specific verb+resource combination.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied context is that this is the creation operation for cards, which is insufficient for an AI agent to make nuanced decisions.

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