create_planner_bucket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses idempotency, case-insensitive matching, that nothing is created on duplicates, and that the existing bucket's ID is returned. It does not cover authentication or error scenarios, but the main side-effect behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, one for critical idempotency behavior, then a minimal Args list. No filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter create tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotent duplicate handling, and plan resolution. It could add an explicit login prerequisite, but auth is handled through sibling auth tools and the core behavior is complete.

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%, so the Args section must compensate. It explains bucket_name as the name and, more valuably, decodes plan as a name or ID with empty falling back to KAIROS_DEFAULT_PLAN or the only plan — meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a bucket (board column) in a Planner plan.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_planner_task and list_planner_plans by naming the object being created and its container.

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 intended use is implied by the create action, and the idempotency note explains that calling it again returns an existing bucket's ID rather than failing. However, it never names alternatives or says when not to use it, leaving tool-selection guidance implicit.

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