Vibe Board VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that new projects are created with 'status=active' (default behavior), mentions the return format '{ id, name, status, message }', and implies this is a write operation. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides solid behavioral context for a creation tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second gives usage guidelines, third reveals behavioral details. Front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words, and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, guidelines, default status, and return format. It doesn't cover error cases or permissions, but gives enough for basic use. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate for missing output schema documentation.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained how parameters relate to the 'shared goal' concept.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new project') with specific purpose ('to group tasks and sessions under a shared goal'). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining projects are 'top-level containers' that tasks/sessions must belong to, unlike board_create_task or board_create_session which create subordinate items.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use sparingly: create a new project for major initiatives (3+ related tasks), not for every piece of work.' This gives clear when-to-use criteria and implicitly distinguishes from board_create_task for smaller work items. No alternative tool is named, but the context makes the distinction clear.

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