create_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only clarifies two parameter semantics (priority, category_name) and does not mention required permissions, side effects of creation, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with zero unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds two key parameter clarifications, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a tool with 11 parameters. It does not state that project_id is required or how to obtain valid IDs, nor does it relate to sibling tools like list_projects. The parameter coverage is minimal, making the tool difficult to use correctly without additional information.

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. It explains priority (1-5 scale) and category_name (column name), but 9 of 11 parameters (body, points, epic_id, label_ids, sprint_id, assignee_ids, workspace_id) receive no elaboration, leaving the agent to infer meaning from type alone.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a new card (issue) in a project, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_card, move_card, and archive_card, and clarifies the domain terminology.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'create' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ticket, or any prerequisites such as needing a project_id. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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