create_app_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or how the card interacts with board_id/parent_frame_id. It only loosely explains three optional fields, which is insufficient behavioral disclosure for a creation operation.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the parameter notes are compact with no filler. The double-backtick formatting is slightly noisy, and the terse one-line-per-param style borders on under-specification, but the text is appropriately sized.

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 12-parameter creation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is far too thin; an output schema exists so return values need not be covered, but the input side is largely unexplained. An agent would have to infer the meaning of board_id, coordinates, sizing, and parent_frame_id entirely from parameter names.

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, but it only touches 3 of 12 parameters (status, fields, border_shape) and even those only restate the enum values already visible in the schema. Required parameters like board_id, x, y, and title, plus width/height/card_theme/description/parent_frame_id, receive no explanation at all.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Create an app card") and adds a clarifying parenthetical, "widget card linked to an app," which distinguishes it conceptually from a plain card. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling create_card or update_app_card, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose create_app_card over create_card, create_embed, or create_code_widget, all of which exist as siblings. No prerequisites (board membership, permissions) or placement context are stated, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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