create_board

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait: the call consumes no credits, which matters for agent planning. However, it never states permission requirements, whether the board name must be unique, what the response contains (e.g. a board id), or what happens on failure, so mutation semantics remain largely opaque.

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, action stated first, cost disclosure second. Nothing is padded and nothing repeats the tool name.

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 one-parameter creation tool with no output schema this is the minimum viable amount: it explains the action and the credit cost. It is still missing what the caller gets back and how the board relates to other creation paths, which matter for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 0% and the single required parameter "name" is never mentioned in the description. That name maps to the board's name is inferable from context, but constraints (non-empty, minLength 1) and any naming rules are left entirely to the schema, which says nothing.

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?

"Create an empty board" is a specific verb plus resource, and the word "empty" distinguishes it from creation paths that pull in external content (e.g. recreate_from_link). It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative creation route (recreate_from_link) that an agent might otherwise consider. The reader must infer the choice entirely.

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