planka_manage_lists

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. However, it only restates the action verbs already present in the schema enum and does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to cards/tasks when a list is deleted.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes: the verbs identify the operations and 'lists on a board' identifies the target resource.

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 input schema is complete and the description is clear enough for basic use. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of what the tool returns, how errors surface, or the consequences of each action, so the context is only minimally sufficient.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline for a schema that covers every parameter.

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?

It names the primary operations (create, update, delete) and the specific resource (lists on a board). Among the siblings, only planka_manage_labels is similarly phrased but for a different resource, so this tool is clearly differentiated.

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 'lists on a board' makes it clear when this tool applies: for list lifecycle operations. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state exclusions, but there is no sibling dedicated to lists, so the usage context is unambiguous.

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