projects

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 only says 'manage,' which implies CRUD operations but fails to mention destructive actions, permission requirements, side effects, or return formats. This is a significant gap for a tool with delete/update actions.

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 concise at two sentences, with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a clarifying context about project hierarchy. However, it is slightly under-specified for the tool's complexity, but that is more a completeness issue than conciseness.

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 CRUD tool with 5 distinct actions and a nested data object, the description lacks critical context about when to use each action, what results to expect, or error scenarios. The schema helps with parameter semantics, but without output schema or behavioral notes, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including the action enum and data object. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'Manage Planka projects' which clearly identifies the resource but uses the generic verb 'manage' rather than a specific action. It does differentiate by noting projects are 'top-level containers for boards,' distinguishing from sibling tools like boards and lists.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The usage is implied by the tool's name and the context of being the projects resource, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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