Workboard Create Activity Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool and largely drops it. It does not state authentication requirements, whether creation is idempotent or can duplicate cards, what happens if ai_workstream is omitted, or any side effects. Return shape is covered by the output schema, but the mutation's safety and preconditions are not.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose sentence and then the three value constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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?

The schema is fully described and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain fields or return values, and its constraint lines cover the trickiest inputs. It is still thin for a 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations: it never mentions that ai_description is the required card title, nor the auth/ID lookups needed to call it successfully.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value beyond it: it converts the soft parenthetical value lists in ai_state, ai_priority, and ai_effort into hard constraints ('must be ...'). Since the schema declares no formal enums (0 parameters with enums), this imperative phrasing is the only signal that invalid values will be rejected.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Create a new action item (card) on a WorkBoard workstream' — and even bridges domain vocabulary ('action item' = 'card'). This is unambiguous against siblings like workboard_update_activity_tool or workboard_list_activities_tool. However, it never names or contrasts with an alternative sibling, which is what separates a 4 from a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus workboard_create_workstream_tool or workboard_create_objective_tool, and no prerequisites such as obtaining a workstream or team ID first. The only guidance is value-domain constraints, which is parameter semantics rather than usage context.

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