planka_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Create'), but it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded ('Create a project'), and the field details are presented immediately after. It earns its place by conveying both purpose and essential parameter structure.

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 create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out critical context: what the response looks like, whether name is required, and whether there are any other constraints on the nested object. It provides the field names but not enough for an agent to call the tool correctly with confidence.

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?

The input schema provides only an opaque 'fields' object with no internal properties, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying the nested structure: type ('private'|'shared') and name. This gives essential meaning that the schema lacks, though it does not state whether fields are required or if other fields are allowed.

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 action 'Create a project' with a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like update_project or delete_project. It also names the key fields, which reinforces what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as planka_update_project or planka_read_projects. It only says 'Create a project' with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.

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