create_list

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the side effect of using the 'closed' list type (cards become closed). This is a non-obvious behavioral trait worth flagging.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then provides a critical caution. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 is a straightforward creation action with 4 parameters, all documented in the schema. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description adds the crucial closed-list behavior, which is essential for correct usage. The sibling tool list provides enough context to distinguish this from other list 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?

The input schema provides thorough descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), including the meaning of each list_type value. The description adds marginal semantic value by clarifying the consequence of choosing 'closed', but this is largely redundant with the schema's 'cards land here as finished'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Add a workflow stage to a project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context makes it distinct from sibling tools like update_list and delete_list. The note about closed lists adds additional specificity.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (adding a workflow stage) and provides a specific usage caveat: only use the 'closed' list type for a genuine done stage because Planka will close any card placed there. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus other list-related tools.

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