tb_create_board

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions atomicity for tasks, but omits potential side effects, idempotency behavior, required permissions, error handling, or rate limits. Critical behavioral aspects like the write nature (though implied by 'create') and the meaning of parameters like idempotency_key are not explained.

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 very concise, two sentences, with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key optional behavior.

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 has 9 parameters and nested structures, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of many parameters (e.g., idempotency_key, coordination_mode) or provide details on outputs or failure modes. The lack of output schema and behavior notes leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 low (33%). The description adds some context for the 'tasks' parameter (inline creation), but does not elaborate on other parameters like name, api_version, idempotency_key, or coordination_mode. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 new task board for a project, and explicitly mentions the optional inline creation of tasks. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tb_add_task by noting it avoids N separate calls.

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 tells when to use this tool: to create a board and optionally tasks in a single atomic call, contrasting with using tb_add_task separately. This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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