create_trello_board

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 states the core action—creating a board—but does not disclose what a successful call returns (board ID, URL), side effects (e.g., Trello's default lists), or failure/error behavior. Since there is also no output schema, the missing return-value information is a significant gap for an agent that would likely chain this with sibling operations.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. However, it is concise mainly by omitting information rather than by efficiently packaging a complete message; it borders on under-specification for a tool with two parameters and no other documentation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and roughly 40 sibling tools that likely consume its result (e.g., create_trello_list, create_trello_card), the description is incomplete. It omits return values, parameter meaning, and behavioral side effects, leaving the agent unable to reliably chain this tool into downstream operations.

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 100%, but both descriptions are tautological placeholders—"Parameter name" and "Parameter desc"—that convey zero semantic meaning. The tool description does not compensate by clarifying that 'name' is the board's title and 'desc' is the board's description, so the baseline-3 assumption that the schema does the heavy lifting does not hold.

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 "Crée un nouveau board Trello" (Creates a new Trello board) states a specific verb and resource, and the word 'nouveau' implicitly distinguishes this from modification tools like close_board, reopen_board, and delete_board. It is clear and functional, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace), no exclusion conditions, and no reference to alternatives like create_trello_list or list_trello_boards. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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