Create Cards

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

Goes far beyond annotations. The description discloses partial success semantics (isError: false with failed[]), idempotency implications (created[] cards already exist), the tool's resolution of type labels, the cosmetic nature of header, and explicit prohibitions like 'Never invent board, type, or lane ids.' These behaviors are not inferable from annotations alone.

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 long and dense, but each sentence provides essential operational detail for handling partial failures, rate limits, and parent-card connections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers edge cases. Slightly more structured formatting (bullets) could improve readability, but nothing is wasteful.

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 tool's complexity (bulk creation, partial success, retryAfter, parent linkage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains return values, error handling, chunking, idempotency rules, and integration steps, leaving no significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches meaning by clarifying usage: 'type' is resolved to typeId, 'header' is cosmetic and not used for connections, 'clientKey' is echoed in responses, and 'boardId' accepts title or id. These are practical semantics that go beyond mere field 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 opens with 'Bulk-creates cards on one board,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also explicitly distinguishes from updates ('Use for new cards, not updates'), which helps differentiate even in the absence of sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use for new cards, not updates') and how to handle failures ('resubmit only the failed[] cards'). It covers chunking (>40), partial success, retryAfter logic, and never resubmitting created[] clientKeys, giving clear directives for safe and correct usage.

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