create_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create'), implying a mutation, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success (e.g., whether the created card is returned). It also does not mention any preconditions beyond the schema's required fields. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond the obvious.

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 front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant details, and the optional lane is mentioned succinctly. It is appropriately brief for the tool's simplicity, though slightly more detail on behavior could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

Given that the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's result or any constraints. It does mention the core location context (board, column, optional lane) but omits details such as whether the created card is returned, how errors are handled, or any prerequisites like existing board/column eligibility. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify the return value, which it does not. Overall, it is adequate but not complete for a create operation.

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 input schema fully documents all six parameters. The tool description adds a small semantic nuance by highlighting that lane_id is optional ('and optional lane') and reiterating the need for board and column. However, it does not explain owner_id or description beyond what the schema already states, so it does not significantly compensate for or enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Create'), the resource ('a new card'), and the location constraints ('on a board in a specific column (and optional lane)'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_card, move_card, and delete_card, which perform different actions. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 specifies the context of use (creating a card on a board in a column/lane) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. While it is obvious that this is the creation tool among card-related siblings, there is no explicit guidance on choosing it over other actions. The context is clear, but exclusions are not stated.

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