Create a card

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: cards are placed at list bottom, the created card is returned with id and url, and label_ids must be ids rather than names ('names will not work'). This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides targeted parameter clarifications, and ends with the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, placement, parameter provenance and format requirements, and the return value. It does not explicitly state that name is required, but that is obvious from the schema's required list. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates schema information (list_id from get_lists, desc supports Markdown, label_ids are ids) and adds a small clarification for due as 'ISO 8601 date or datetime' with a date-only example. This is helpful but not substantially beyond the schema's existing descriptions, so it stays at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a card at the bottom of a list.' It clearly states the action (create), the target (a card), and the placement (bottom of a list), distinguishing it from siblings like move_card, update_card, and archive_card. The added detail that the card is placed at the bottom gives precise scope beyond the title.

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 description implies usage by stating 'Create a card at the bottom of a list' and gives parameter sourcing guidance ('list_id comes from get_lists', 'label_ids are label ids from get_labels'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as update_card for modifications. Usage context is clear but exclusionary guidance is absent.

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