create_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies mutation via "Create." It does not state permission/ownership requirements, what the `parameters` object does, whether the board is team-scoped, or what happens on duplicate names.

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?

One short sentence is technically concise, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — nothing is front-loaded beyond a restatement of the tool name.

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?

A five-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema needs far more than a four-word description. Neither the enum semantics nor the required nested payload are addressed anywhere.

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% across five parameters, including an opaque free-form `parameters` object and a `type` enum with five unlabeled values. The description adds no meaning to any of them, leaving the agent entirely dependent on bare property names.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create" + "Umami board"), which is enough to distinguish it from get_board/update_board/delete_board by name alone. However, it never explains what an Umami board is or how it relates to the five board types in the schema, so the purpose is only vaguely understood.

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 create_website, create_link, create_pixel, or clone_board, nor any mention of prerequisites such as team membership. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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