planka_create_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and optional task inclusion, without mentioning side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error handling. As a mutating operation, more transparency is expected to prevent misuse.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the optional task feature is stated secondary. It is easily scannable and to the point.

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 create tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimal but sufficient for basic invocation. However, it does not reference the sibling tool planka_create_tasks, which could lead to misuse when adding tasks to an existing card. Additionally, no return value or post-creation behavior is mentioned, though no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter insight beyond restating that tasks are checklist items, which the schema already mentions. Therefore, it does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the action 'Create a new card on a board' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the optional task functionality, distinguishing it from tools like planka_create_tasks. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling operations.

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 usage context is implied: you use this tool to create a card. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like planka_create_tasks for adding tasks later, nor any exclusions or conditions. The phrase 'at the same time' hints at a timing option but does not clarify the separation of concerns.

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