Create stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of side effects, no note that a duplicate title creates a second stack, no auth/permission requirements. The REST path is the only extra information and it is not behavior an agent can act on.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first sentence and no filler prose. The trailing POST path is marginally useful for API-savvy agents but is the only element that doesn't earn its place for tool selection.

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 non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should say at minimum what is returned (the new stack id) and how ordering behaves. It leaves both the parameters and the result shape unexplained, which is not enough for an agent to call this confidently.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them and does not. 'order' (position of the new column, default 0) and 'board_id' (which board the stack is created on) are never clarified, and 'title' is only implied by the word 'stack'. The schema alone leaves the agent guessing about ordering semantics.

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 one stack (column) on a board') and disambiguates the Deck terminology by glossing 'stack' as 'column', which also implicitly separates it from nextcloud_create_board and nextcloud_create_card. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands just under the top mark.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as the board having to exist or the caller needing write access, and no pointer to list_stacks or create_card as adjacent operations. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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