yougile_create_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a non-destructive write. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond restating the projectId parameter's purpose ('inside a project'). It does not disclose permissions, idempotency, or error behavior, so the added value over annotations is low.

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 a single 8-word sentence with a clear action verb and no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, with every word earning 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?

For a simple 2-parameter create tool with complete schema and annotations, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, the absence of an output schema means the return value is not described, and there is no mention of behavior on invalid input (e.g., non-existent projectId), leaving some practical gaps.

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 100%: both 'title' and 'projectId' have descriptive text ('Board title', 'Parent project UUID'). The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource 'board' with the context 'inside a project', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project or create_column. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'inside a project' implies a prerequisite that a parent project must exist, providing some usage context. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_boards, update_board) or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance largely implied.

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