add_project_board

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the admin-only nature and a real operational precondition (Status option ids must already be discovered via GraphQL), but says nothing about idempotency, what happens if the board is already registered, auth requirements, or the effect of the optional status mappings.

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?

Two efficiently written sentences, front-loaded with the 'Admin:' qualifier and the prerequisite. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition does far too little. An agent still lacks the meaning of most parameters, the registration semantics, and the return behavior.

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. The description hints that the StatusOption*/StatusFieldNodeId values come from GraphQL discovery, which partially explains roughly half the parameters, but ProjectId, GithubProjectNumber, GithubOwner, DisplayName, and as_agent are entirely undocumented in both places.

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: 'register a GitHub Projects V2 board for a project.' That resource is distinct enough from siblings like add_project_repo and set_project_slack that an agent can tell what is being attached, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 'Admin:' prefix and the note that the caller must have already discovered Status field option ids imply a prior setup step in a flow, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the sibling tools.

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