basecamp_create_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that attachments can be included via attachment_sgids, which is a useful extra. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or return value, which would be valuable for a create operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant filler. Every word 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?

The description is sufficient for a straightforward create tool, but with no output schema, it omits what the agent can expect as a return value (e.g., created card object). Given the tool has 7 parameters and sits among many sibling tools, a bit more context on prerequisites or results would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented already. The description's mention of attachment_sgids adds a hint but does not go beyond what the schema already states (e.g., embedding in card content). No extra semantics are provided for other parameters.

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 ('Create a new card') and the target resource ('in a specific column'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like basecamp_update_card or basecamp_move_card. The attachment capability is also mentioned, adding useful specificity.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when creating a card within a column. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from update/move operations.

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