create_column

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'creates' a column, which implies mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions (e.g., duplicate column names), or whether changes are immediately visible. This is minimal 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. Every word contributes to understanding, 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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic purpose identification but lacks behavioral details like return value or error scenarios. It is sufficient for a simple create operation but leaves some gaps for an agent invoking it autonomously.

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 parameters are already documented with 'Column name' and 'The project UUID'. The description adds minimal value by linking the project_id to the kanban board context, but it does not enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('column in a project's kanban board'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task or create_project by specifying the kanban board context.

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 implies usage when you need to add a column to a kanban board, but it provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It is clear but lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use context.

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