createJiraBoard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is company-managed and must derive from an existing filter, but says nothing about required permissions, failure modes, or whether a duplicate name is rejected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds meaning (company-managed, board type, source filter) and nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and only 25% parameter coverage, the description is thin for a creation tool. It conveys the core operation and one prerequisite, but an agent still lacks guidance on the 'name' and 'projectKeyOrId' semantics and on what is returned.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the enum values for 'type' (scrum/kanban) and that 'filterId' references an existing filter, but 'name' has no description and 'projectKeyOrId' is only covered by the schema. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific verb (Create), resource (board), and scope (company-managed, scrum or kanban, from an existing filter), which distinguishes it from siblings like listJiraBoards and getJiraBoardConfig. It is clear but does not explicitly name an alternative or boundary against siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'from an existing filter' implies a prerequisite, but the description never says when to use this tool versus creating a board another way or checking for existing boards first. No alternatives or exclusions are given, leaving usage largely to inference.

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