planka_create_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that the tool creates a board; it does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether the call is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the essential parameter shape. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the return value or outcome. It does not mention what the tool returns, how to obtain the created board's ID, or behavior on invalid input, leaving an agent to guess for downstream calls.

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 0% and the fields parameter is a bare object, so the description compensates by enumerating expected subfields: name, type: 'board', and position. It does not fully specify value constraints or defaults, but it provides meaningful guidance beyond 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 specific action and resource: 'Create a board in a project.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project, create_card, and update_board without needing to inspect schemas.

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 purpose implies this is the tool to use when adding a new board to an existing project, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. Prerequisites such as requiring a valid projectId are not stated.

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