Workboard Create Workstream Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses the required team manager/co-manager permission, which is non-obvious. It does not cover other behavioral traits such as idempotency, name uniqueness constraints, or failure modes, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the permission prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple create operation, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema that handles return values, the description supplies the essential permission context. It is nearly complete, missing only optional guidance on when to update versus create or additional failure conditions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('workstream') plus scope ('for a team'). The create verb clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like workboard_update_workstream_tool and workboard_get_workstreams_tool without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

Description provides clear context ('Create a new workstream for a team') and a critical prerequisite ('Requires team manager or co-manager permissions'). It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_workstream) or when not to use it, but the creation intent is unambiguous.

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