passgage_create_card

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action but omits side effects, return values, permissions, idempotency, or required data shape. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word is informative yet insufficient for a tool with complex input, warranting a mid-range score.

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 tool has a nested object parameter with arbitrary properties and no output schema or annotations. The description does not clarify the card data structure, required fields, or operation context, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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 schema has high coverage for the single 'data' parameter, but both the schema description and the tool description are tautological ('The data for creating the card'). No subfields, examples, or structure hints are provided, so the agent gains no meaningful understanding beyond the parameter name.

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' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from update/delete/get/list card siblings, though it doesn't differentiate among the many create_* tools (e.g., create_user, create_approval) beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus update_card or other create_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions that warrant creating a card instead of updating one.

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