team_create_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are largely covered. The description adds useful context: the board is created 'empty' and 'local', and no agent or thread is spawned as a side effect. It doesn't cover permissions, failure modes, or return value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, the affirmative purpose front-loaded and the scope exclusion second. Zero waste and no filler.

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 single-parameter create tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is close to sufficient. Missing pieces are minor but real: where the board persists, what the response contains, and whether a title must be unique — none of which the annotations or schema address.

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?

Only one parameter ('title') with 0% schema description coverage, but the name is self-explanatory and the schema supplies minLength/maxLength constraints. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so it neither compensates nor creates ambiguity — baseline 3.

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 an empty local team board') and immediately narrows scope with 'Does not create any agent or thread,' which heads off confusion with siblings like team_bind_session or team_bind_agent_activity. It doesn't name an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many team_* siblings. The negation about agents/threads is a scope boundary, not usage guidance, so an agent still has to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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