create_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond structured fields: the ai-software-development template provisions default agents, ownership is set to the caller, and the return contains column and agent identifiers. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, name-uniqueness constraints, and any failure modes for a persistent-state-creating operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the resource. The parenthetical template detail is long but earns its place by explaining a non-obvious side effect (agent provisioning); no filler sentences.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by naming what the return value contains (board, column, and agent identifiers) and what the templates create. What is missing is operational context such as required permissions or how ownership interacts with the other board tools.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning for the template parameter by enumerating the columns each option produces (Todo/In Progress/Done vs. Inbox/Triage/In Progress/Code Review/Testing/Done plus default agents). That is more than the schema's terse "The layout to start from. Defaults to blank."

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 (create a board) with an ownership qualifier ("you own") and explicitly names the two template variants. An agent can distinguish this from list_boards, get_board, and update_board_context without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the creation semantics and the template enumeration, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no prerequisites (e.g., permissions, whether a repository is required for the ai-software-development template). Adequate but leaves selection context to inference.

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