create_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses draft status, the board-inheritance/sync behavior that fires for every task, the response echo semantics (null = not board-bound), and an admin-auth hint. It still omits what PlanType values are legal, whether creation is reversible, and any error/failure behavior.

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?

Board-inheritance guidance is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational meaning, but the second sentence is a long run-on bundling several distinct facts (inheritance, board sync, bulk inserts) that could be split for scanability.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the primary_board_id lifecycle and partial return semantics, but leaves most parameters, allowed PlanType values, and the non-board side effects of creation opaque to the caller.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, yet the description explains only PrimaryBoardId. The required ProjectId, plus Name, PlanType, as_agent, Objective, and PrimarySlackChannelId, remain entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource+initial state: 'create a new plan (in draft status)', with the 'Admin:' qualifier signaling the privilege tier. An agent can distinguish it from activate_plan and archive_plan without opening schemas.

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 explicit when/when-not for primary_board_id ('omit when the project has exactly one board; pass explicitly only when more than one') and routes activation to activate_plan. It does not, however, cover the broader when-to-create-a-plan-vs-other-creators context.

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