clm_lean_card_command_lean_card_create

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it discloses team assignment, automatic status computation, access-control role setup, and queued background jobs to refresh site-structure and team grouping counts. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences with minimal waste, front-loaded with the primary create action before the secondary details. The first sentence is dense (four behaviors in one sentence) but every clause earns its place, and the second sentence usefully flags the background-job side effect.

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 covers the tool's procedural behavior and side effects well, and since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. However, for a create command with 26 optional-looking parameters, it is incomplete: an agent cannot determine what a minimal valid call looks like, how fields group together, or what the computed 'initial status' and access-control roles actually are.

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 bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It conceptually maps a few fields (sender/recipient team, project/site, status), but 26 nested properties remain undocumented — with no guidance on which fields are required for a valid creation, how they relate to each other, or what the date/numeric fields mean.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Creates a new lean card (working package)' — and clarifies the domain term 'lean card' by equating it with 'working package'. It then enumerates what the create encompasses (sender/recipient team assignment, initial status computation, access-control roles), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling lean_card_update tool.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is for creating a new working package, as opposed to updating one or creating a lean document. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' / 'use that instead' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites before creating a lean card.

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