create_column

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

The description discloses the return value on success ({ column_id }) and the project resolution mechanism. With no annotations, it carries the full burden, but it omits important behavioral details such as side effects, validation rules, error conditions, or column ordering.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and return value. Every piece of information is relevant and there is no fluff.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key output. It addresses project resolution, which is a common source of confusion. However, it lacks information about failure modes, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), and column limits, making it slightly incomplete for a mutation 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., title length, task limit minimum). The project resolution hint is more about usage context than parameter meaning.

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 ('Add a column') and resource ('Kanboard project board'), including project resolution. It distinguishes from siblings like update_column, delete_column, and move_column based on the action, but does not explicitly contrast with other creation tools like create_swimlane.

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 explains how the project is resolved (from explicit parameters or .kanboard.yaml), providing useful context. However, it does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_column or delete_column), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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