Vibe Board VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels at disclosing behavioral traits: default values for status and priority, automatic timestamp setting for in_progress/done statuses, activity_log creation for audit, how subtasks work, advisory nature of depends_on, and return format. This provides comprehensive operational understanding.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: first states core purpose, then covers defaults and automatic behaviors, then explains key parameters with practical examples, and finally specifies return format. The description is dense with information but well-structured and front-loaded with the most important details.

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 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness: it explains defaults, automatic behaviors, audit logging, parameter semantics, and return values. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning error conditions or validation rules, but this is comprehensive for practical use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the practical implications of status choices (auto-setting timestamps), the purpose of parent_task_id and depends_on, and provides context about when to use certain parameters. However, it doesn't cover all 10 parameters explicitly.

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 specific action ('Create a task in a project') and distinguishes it from siblings like board_create_project (creates projects) and board_delete_task (deletes tasks). It provides the exact verb and resource without ambiguity.

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 parent_task_id (to create subtasks) and depends_on (to express ordering), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like board_bulk_update_tasks for multiple updates. It offers good practical guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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