Create a board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the board is created empty, that it lands in a hidden default project, and that the return is { id, boardId } with both equal to the new board's id. It does not address name collisions, permissions/auth, or whether the creation is reversible by delete — minor gaps for a non-destructive create.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is created and what it contains, then params, return shape, project side effect, and next steps in a logical order. No sentence is filler.

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?

No annotations and no output schema exist, so the description had to cover semantics, side effects, return values, and sequencing — and it does all four. For a two-parameter create tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, yet the description fully compensates: `name` is identified as the required board title and `description` as an optional short blurb shown on the home picker. That adds UI-level meaning the bare string types do not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new empty board') and immediately disambiguates scope with '(no lists, no cards)', which distinguishes it from kanbini_create_list and kanbini_create_card. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces without inspecting the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit follow-on workflow: 'Add columns next with kanbini_create_list, then populate them with kanbini_create_card', naming the alternatives and when each applies. It also discloses the implicit placement rule ('added to Kanbini's default project automatically'), removing the need for an agent to look for a project argument.

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