create_grid

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent mutation, so safety signaling is carried by structured fields. The description adds useful behavior (grid is seeded with default widgets, widgets are managed elsewhere) but does not cover permissions, the preview-then-confirm flow, or what gets created/returned, which the schema partly handles.

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?

Front-loads the action in one short sentence, then adds only two supporting sentences of genuinely useful context about default widgets and create_board. No redundant restatement of name or schema fields.

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 create tool with no output schema but a fully documented input schema (including the confirm preview), the description supplies enough conceptual context to call it correctly. It could say slightly more about what a successful creation yields or permission needs, but the essentials are 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the confirm preview semantics and scope path rules is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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 the specific verb (create) and resource (dashboard grid) plus where it lives (a page), and defines what a grid is: the widget layout of My Page, a project overview, or a board. It also names the sibling create_board and explains that a board's saved queries come from it, so the agent can distinguish the two without opening 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?

Explicitly notes that the grid starts with OpenProject's default widgets and that other widgets are added in OpenProject rather than via this tool, and routes board query creation to create_board. Clear context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_grid or list_grids or state prerequisites.

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