create_board

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

The annotations indicate this is a mutating tool requiring specific authorization (admin/projectOwner role). The description openly clarifies that Planka will reject requests from other roles, adding an important behavioral caveat to avoid unexpected failures. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence identifies the tool, and the second provides critical usage guidance.

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?

Given the full annotations (including an output schema for success details) and the presence of many sibling tools, this description is complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites (auth), behavioral constraints, and workflow sequencing (board before projects).

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by not repeating param details, but it's a very short description that trusts the schema. The shared parameter's schema description already covers the business impact, but the tool description doesn't expand on it further – a minor missed opportunity.

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 starts with strong specificity, stating the tool creates a 'board' that holds projects (tabs) – a precise verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like `create_project` by noting the board is created first, then filled with projects.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Create the board first') and what to do after ('then fill it with create_project or copy_project_structure'). Also provides a critical exclusion: requires an admin or projectOwner account, guiding agents away from this tool if they lack those credentials.

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