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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-step write protocol: the tool is PROPOSED, returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token, and the write only occurs after confirm_action. It also clarifies side effects the annotations cannot convey — the caller becomes creator and members are added in the cabinet rather than here.

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?

Front-loads purpose and scope, then the usage exclusion, then the confirmation protocol, with no filler sentences. Each clause carries distinct, actionable information and the CONFIRMATION label makes the critical behavior easy to scan.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the shape of the confirmation response (status, action_id, plan_token) and the follow-up tool, which is the key unknown for a deferred write. The remaining gap is parameter meaning (notably 'tag'), which leaves the definition slightly short of complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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% for three parameters, and the description mentions none of them — it never says what 'title' does, what 'tag' is for (a short label, 16 chars max), or how 'description' is rendered. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 and resource ('Create a project') and immediately defines the resource in domain terms ('a board of assignments') in the caller's company. It also contrasts with the sibling concept of a single task/assignment, so an agent can tell it apart from erp_create_assignment without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ('Use when work needs a new board') and an explicit exclusion ('not for a single task, which belongs on an existing project'). The alternative is described conceptually rather than by tool name, so routing is clear but slightly less crisp than a named sibling.

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