create_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It goes beyond the schema by revealing that both color and icon are required despite schema defaults, and that omitting icon returns HTTP 500. This is critical, non-obvious behavior that directly impacts tool invocation, making the description highly transparent.

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 succinct with three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, status constraint, and critical field requirements with examples. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 description covers the essential usage quirks and constraints for this create operation in the absence of annotations and output schema. It lacks explicit mention of return value or any side effects, but given the schema explicitly lists required parameters (project_id, name), the description adequately supplements the structured data. A minor gap exists in not stating what the tool returns, but this is not critical for a create operation.

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?

The schema provides zero descriptions for parameters, so the description fully compensates. It explains the meaning of status (enum values), explicitly states that color and icon are both required despite schema defaults, and gives examples of valid icon names. This significantly enriches the parameter understanding beyond the bare 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 creates a kanban stage, using the verb 'create' and the resource 'kanban stage'. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_stage or delete_stage, as it specifically describes a creation action.

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 provides clear usage constraints (status must be one of the listed values, both color and icon are required) which inform how to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that the tool's use case is evident. It could be improved by explicitly stating 'to update a stage, use update_stage' but the lack of that is not misleading.

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