board_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — re-adding an open ask returns repeated=true, signalling the user repeated themselves — which is useful runtime context. However, it says nothing about the api_key parameter, authentication requirements, persistence, or side effects of a write operation.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the pipe-delimited kind list is compact and information-dense. The prose is terse rather than bloated, though the pipe formatting makes it slightly awkward to parse.

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 12-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the semantically important fields and the repeated=true return behavior. It still omits auth/credential handling (api_key) and several less-common parameters, so an agent cannot call it fully blind.

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 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains kind (five values that are effectively an undocumented enum), goal, metric, parent, text, and evidence implicitly. It leaves path, agent, status, api_key, current, project, and the kind-specific pairing rules undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Record on the project board.' The kind enumeration clarifies what record types exist. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'board_update' or 'board', leaving some ambiguity about add vs. update.

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?

Strong procedural guidance: record every ask VERBATIM before starting, use action for steps, delivered requires evidence, parent links to the ask it serves. This tells the agent when each kind applies. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (board_update) for modifying existing entries.

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