item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or persistence behavior beyond the implied 'add' action. It also doesn't describe what happens to existing items or whether duplicates are allowed, which is a significant gap for a mutating 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 highly concise, consisting of a single sentence with two clauses. It front-loads the core action ('Add to the decisions and action-items board') and immediately follows with a key constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has five parameters and no output schema, yet the description offers no context on parameter usage, expected outcomes, or integration with sibling tools. It barely covers the basic purpose, leaving the agent to infer field semantics and any board-specific behavior.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (kind, text, owner, session, blocked_by). There is no compensation for the low schema coverage, so the agent has no semantic guidance beyond the raw 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's function: 'Add to the decisions and action-items board.' It also distinguishes scope by specifying 'Only for things actually decided or assigned, not for topics discussed.' This is a specific verb+resource and provides a clear boundary.

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 explicitly states when not to use it ('not for topics discussed'), providing a clear exclusion criterion. However, it does not name alternative tools, so it falls short of fully explicit alternatives, but the when-not guidance is strong.

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