clm_lean_card_command_create_lean_document

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it only registers the document if it does not already exist, queues asynchronous background processing, and ultimately creates or updates lean cards. This is helpful transparency for a command-like tool, though it does not cover failure modes or permission requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then explains the workflow. It avoids unnecessary filler, though it is somewhat dense with clauses.

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 description conveys the tool's purpose and async behavior well, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. However, the absence of any parameter-level guidance and lack of stated prerequisites—such as how the document upload happens or which identifiers are needed—leave the agent with meaningful gaps.

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% and all five parameters have no descriptions. The high-level description mentions project/site and an uploaded Excel workbook, but it does not clarify the roles of FileId, ItemId, SiteId, FileName, and ProjectId, leaving parameter selection ambiguous.

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 a specific action: registering an uploaded Excel workbook for bulk import/refresh of lean cards, then queueing background processing. It distinguishes itself from sibling lean-card commands by describing the bulk-import workflow rather than direct single-card creation or update.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for bulk importing or refreshing lean cards from an uploaded Excel workbook. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scenario is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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