planka_create_board

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

The description only mentions creation of a board with lists and labels, but provides no details on destructive nature, permissions, or side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description is one concise sentence, but it lacks structure and critical information. It is not front-loaded with the most important details.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, prerequisites, or the implications of creating a board with canonical lists.

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?

Although the input schema includes descriptions for parameters, the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain the parameters like board_type or project_name, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new board' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, 'with canonical lists and lifecycle labels' is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like planka_create_list or planka_create_label.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as planka_create_list. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for board creation.

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