add_project_board

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

Annotations already declare that this mutates state, is non-idempotent, and is not open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful sequencing context (the Status option ids must pre-exist), but says nothing about duplicate-registration behavior, permission requirements, or what a failure looks like — relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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 compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded after the 'Admin:' prefix. The parenthetical about the discover endpoint is slightly vague but not wasteful.

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 output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is thin. An agent still cannot tell which optional fields are needed for a minimally valid call or how the various node-id fields relate to one another.

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 carries the full documentation burden and mostly does not meet it. It only indirectly explains the five StatusOption*/StatusFieldNodeId fields as GraphQL-discovered ids; ProjectId, GithubOwner, DisplayName, GithubProjectNumber, GithubProjectV2NodeId, and as_agent are undocumented anywhere.

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') and flags the admin scope, which separates it from sibling helpers like add_project_repo or create_project. It doesn't compare itself to those siblings explicitly, but the resource is 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?

Gives a clear precondition for use: the caller must have already discovered Status field option ids via the GraphQL API, and it points at a discover endpoint as the way to do that. It stops short of saying what to do if the board is already registered or when not to call it.

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