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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about required permissions, side effects on the existing workflow, or whether the new status is appended or placed by index. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 rich schema covers all inputs and defaults, so the agent can construct the call. What is missing is behavioral context: authorization needs, effect on existing status ordering, and confirmation of the created result, none of which annotations or an output schema supply.

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%, with each of the five parameters documented including defaults (board_id defaults to active board, code derived from name). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('add') and resource ('statuses to board workflow'), so an agent knows it creates a status rather than updating or deleting one. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like update_status, delete_status, or reorder_statuses, which operate on the same resource.

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 phrase 'Use this command to add new statuses' is a bare directive with no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. It never says when to prefer this over update_status or reorder_statuses, or what context (board admin, existing board) is required.

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