create_task_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that one call creates both a data artifact and a board page, that the data artifact is not meant for humans, and that the board is 'versioned'. It could mention permission or conflict behavior, but for a creation tool this is strong disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose first, then artifact mechanics, then usage guidance. Every sentence provides distinct value, 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 tool's complexity (dual artifacts, 5 params, output schema) and lack of annotations, the description fully covers the key context: what is created, what the deliverable is, how to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. The output schema covers return details, so no need to describe those.

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% with good per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds strategic usage context for the `tasks` parameter (seed with plan up front), which enriches 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 clearly states the tool creates a 'universal task board' and explains it produces two artifacts: a JSON data artifact and an interactive board page. It explicitly names the deliverable (`board.url`), which distinguishes it from sibling task tools like `task_create` and `list_task_boards`.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this at the start of any multi-step piece of work the user will want visibility into.' It also advises seeding with tasks rather than creating an empty board, and references other task_* tools, implicitly distinguishing this from incremental task creation.

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