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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the default column behavior (important side effect), but does not mention response format, idempotency, error conditions, or permission requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence that conveys the core action and a key behavioral nuance. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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?

Simple tool with 4 parameters, no output schema. Description covers creation and default column behavior. However, it misses details like expected return value, error scenarios (e.g., duplicate title), and potential side effects beyond the default. Adequate for basic use but could be more complete.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying that column_id defaults to the first column (Inbox) if omitted, which is meaningful behavioral context not captured in the schema.

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 'Create a card (id T-N)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like board_update_card or board_delete_card by focusing on creation. The default column behavior adds clarity.

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 guidance on omitting column_id to use the default first column, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like board_update_card or board_add_column. Some implied usage context, but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Add a kanban column' with no details about side effects, constraints, or ordering. Insufficient for transparency.

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 a single sentence that directly states the purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or does after adding. It lacks completeness, e.g., doesn't mention return value or behavior.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (title, workspace) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic context for parameters, meeting baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('kanban column'), making the purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like board_delete_column and board_add_card.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like board_add_card or board_rename_column. Lacks prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like irreversibility or side effects. It only states 'Delete', which is minimally informative and lacks clarity on consequences or requirements.

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 one sentence, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action but could be slightly more structured.

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 delete-by-id tool, the description is adequate but does not mention success/error outputs or any additional behavior. It meets minimum viability but has gaps.

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?

The description adds value by specifying the card ID format (T-N / #T-N), compensating for the missing schema description on the card_id parameter. The workspace parameter is described in the schema.

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 (delete) and resource (card), and specifies the id format (T-N / #T-N), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like board_delete_column or board_add_card.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like board_update_card or board_add_card. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cards move to another column and that the last column cannot be deleted, but fails to specify where cards move (e.g., which column), whether the operation is reversible, or any permissions required. Basic transparency is present 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 extremely concise—three short sentences—with no redundant or irrelevant information. Key points are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the core function and a critical constraint.

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 no output schema, two parameters, and no annotations, the description provides only foundational context. It explains the basic operation and a constraint, but omits details like what happens to cards (exact destination column), error states, or side effects. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to handle correctly.

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 50% (workspace has a description, column_id does not). The tool description adds no additional meaning for column_id or workspace beyond what is in the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to format the column_id or resolve the workspace path. The description does not compensate for the missing schema details.

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 ('delete') and the resource ('column'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like board_rename_column or board_add_column. The constraint about not deleting the last column adds specificity.

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 mentions a key when-not condition ('Cannot delete the last column'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like board_rename_column or board_move_card. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only load operation with optional filtering. Does not mention side effects, which are presumably absent. Lacks explicit read-only declaration, but verb and context suffice.

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 sentences, no waste. First sentence states main action and source, second adds optional behavior. Every sentence adds 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 read tool without output schema, description covers the main behavior and optional parameter. Could clarify error cases (e.g., missing file) but not essential. Complete enough given tool simplicity.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). Description restates the schema info but does not add new semantic details beyond format examples for card_id. Baseline 3 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Load', resource 'workspace kanban board', and source '.webcli/board.json'. It also specifies optional card_id behavior. Distinguishes from sibling mutation tools (e.g., board_add_card, board_delete_card).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the read nature, but lacks direct comparison or exclusion statements.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or response. More transparency is needed for a move operation.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is slightly too minimal and could benefit from a bit more context without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters. The description covers the primary function but lacks usage context, behavioral details, and any reference to output. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the optional order. No extra context is provided.

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 verb 'move', resource 'card', and specifies destination 'another column' with optional order. This distinguishes it from siblings like add, delete, or update.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like board_add_card or board_update_card. No prerequisites, error conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description omits any side effects, permissions needed, or changes to other data.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, but lacks depth; still concise.

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 no output schema and minimal description, the tool is incomplete for safe invocation; lacks detail on renaming behavior and constraints.

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 only 33% (workspace described); description adds no meaning for column_id or title beyond type strings.

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 verb 'rename' and resource 'column by id', distinguishing it from sibling operations like delete or add.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., when not to rename or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It states the tool is an update operation (mutation) and provides the card ID format, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether fields are overwritten or merged.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Includes the card ID format hint in parentheses. Every element earns its place.

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?

Tool is simple (update card fields) and sibling tools provide context. However, no output schema means the return value is undocumented; description does not mention what is returned on success, which is a minor gap 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 coverage is 50% with descriptions for card_id and workspace. The description adds that title and body are updatable, partly compensating for the missing schema descriptions. However, it does not specify allowed formats or constraints for these fields.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'card', specifies updatable fields 'title and/or body', and includes the card ID format hint '(T-N / #T-N)'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like board_add_card and board_delete_card.

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?

Implied usage context: when needing to modify a card's title or body. No explicit when-not or alternatives are provided, which is acceptable given the distinct purpose among siblings, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or when to use other tools.

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