kaiten_create_column

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the mutation (creating a column) but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens on conflict. It only restates the type enum, which is already in the schema, adding no behavioral context.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. The type mapping sentence is redundant with the schema, but it is still concise and does not add bulk. It is appropriately sized, though the redundancy slightly prevents a perfect score.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, and the description only explains one parameter's values. The schema offers minimal descriptions for the other parameters, so an agent may not fully understand optional fields like col_count or wip_limit_type. The description is adequate for basic invocation but leaves room for missing context.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema; 'Type: 1=queue, 2=in_progress, 3=done' exactly duplicates the schema's type description. It does not compensate for optional parameters like col_count or wip_limit.

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 specific action 'Create a column' on a Kaiten board, with a verb and resource that distinguish it from update/delete/list operations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like kaiten_create_subcolumn or kaiten_update_column, so it lacks sibling differentiation but is still unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a board_id, or when to choose create over update. The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be used.

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