board_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses defaults ('status='active', priority='medium' unless overridden'), the return structure, and the shallow merge behavior for metadata. It does not discuss auth or idempotency, but the description is sufficient 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?

The description is five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidelines, then defaults and return value. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or empty words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: creation purpose, defaults, return format, and usage guidelines. It also clarifies a nuanced parameter (priority). This completeness allows an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value: it explains the priority field's distinction from task.priority, suggests usage levels, and provides examples for metadata. Each parameter gets extra context beyond the schema, making this highly informative.

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'), resource ('project'), and purpose ('to group tasks and sessions under a shared goal'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like board_create_task and board_create_session by emphasizing that projects are the top-level container. This meets the highest standard of purpose 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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use sparingly: create a new project for major initiatives (3+ related tasks), not for every piece of work.' It implies that for small pieces of work, existing projects or task creation should be used. While it does not name alternatives explicitly, the sibling tool names provide enough context for an AI agent.

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