add_card_external_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it replaces an existing link, whether it requires permissions, what the response looks like, or if it can fail). This is minimal and 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 a single concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward operation and is front-loaded with the key information.

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 simple add operation with complete schema documentation and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it omits any context about the return value, error conditions, or constraints (e.g., whether the URL must be unique per card), which could be useful for an agent, though not critical given the low complexity.

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% for all three parameters (url, card_id, description), so the schema already documents them clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the action ('attach') and the resource ('external link (URL) to a card'), which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_card_external_link and remove_card_external_link. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related list, update, or remove external link tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios, relying entirely on the agent to infer usage from the operation name and siblings.

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