workboard_create_activity_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions creation and field constraints, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., permissions required, whether duplicates are allowed, what happens if workstream doesn't exist).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints listed concisely. No redundant or verbose text.

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 description covers purpose and field constraints, but does not mention what the tool returns (output schema exists but description could note the created card's ID). For a creation tool, more outcome context would be helpful.

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% but the description adds value by explicitly enumerating allowed values for state (next, doing, done, pause), priority (low, med, high), and effort (easy, medium, huge), which are not listed in the schema. It also clarifies the ai_column parameter's role.

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 the tool creates a new action item (card) on a WorkBoard workstream, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_objective, update_activity, and get_workstream_activities.

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?

The description lists valid values for state, priority, and effort but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_activity or get_activities. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than described.

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