create_swimlane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the return format and project resolution behavior, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., duplicate names) or error conditions. Some behavioral context is added, but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds essential value.

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 simple creation tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: action, project identification, and return value. It is slightly lacking in error behavior details, but overall sufficient.

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 schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining project resolution and return value, making it easier to understand parameter usage.

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 swimlane'), the resource ('Kanboard project'), and how the project is identified. It also specifies the return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_column'.

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 the project resolution order (explicit ID/identifier or config file), which helps the agent understand when parameters are needed. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but for a simple creation tool, this is adequate.

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