rx_create_column

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

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds behavior beyond that: the board is mutated immediately ("Меняет доску сразу"), there is no default position so the column lands before the final column, and deletion is not possible via this server ("удалить колонку этим сервером нельзя"). These are concrete traits the annotations do not convey.

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?

Purpose and fields are front-loaded, followed by default-placement behavior, then the mutation caveat, then the board-reference note and the pre-call instruction. It is dense but every sentence carries operational meaning, so it earns its length.

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 creation mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important points: immediate board mutation, default placement, inability to delete, and accepted board reference forms. Return behavior is unspecified, but the essential call-time context is present.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters and their defaults, including the position default before the final column. The description largely restates field meanings (name, position, is_final, wip_limit) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource: "Создать колонку на agile-доске" (create a column on an agile board), then enumerates the configurable attributes. This clearly separates it from read/list siblings. It does not name any specific sibling to differentiate from, but the resource is distinct enough for selection.

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?

It gives a usage-adjacent instruction ("Перед вызовом перескажите пользователю доску, название и место") and explains that the board may be given by name or Id from rx_boards, which is helpful context. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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