create_swimlane

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It covers project resolution from explicit IDs or .kanboard.yaml, and states the return value. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate name handling), authorization requirements, or failure modes. This is adequate 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 the core purpose, then provides sibling guidance and return value. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers project resolution and return value. However, it lacks information on error handling, idempotency, or ordering constraints. The absence of annotations increases the need for such context, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., project resolution is already in schema as 'overrides .kanboard.yaml'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('to a Kanboard project'). It specifies project resolution from explicit IDs or config file, and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming related operations (move_swimlane, update_swimlane, delete_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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (adding a swimlane) and explicitly names sibling tools for reordering, renaming, and removing, guiding the agent to appropriate alternatives. It does not list explicit exclusion criteria but the context is sufficient.

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