create_board

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it says nothing about required permissions/scopes, whether the board starts empty, or what happens when both team_id and project_id are omitted. It adds only the naming clarification about projects having been renamed to spaces.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the parameter clarification. No filler, though the restructured RST backticks are slightly noisy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves key questions open: default behavior when no team/space is specified, permission requirements, and the undocumented fourth parameter. The explanation of team vs. space is helpful but insufficient on its own.

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%, so the description must compensate; it explains what team_id and project_id target and clarifies the deprecated 'projects' terminology, which is genuinely useful. However, the 'description' parameter is never mentioned and the interaction between the two optional IDs is left implicit.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a new board') in the first sentence, which is unambiguous against siblings like update_board, copy_board, or create_doc. It does not explicitly contrast with copy_board, but the create semantics are clear enough that no confusion is likely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus copy_board, create_doc, or other creation tools, and no stated prerequisites. The second sentence only explains parameter targeting, not usage conditions or exclusions.

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