create_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a draft item (not final) and that status/priority values are project-dependent, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it triggers notifications), permission requirements, or what happens on failure (e.g., draft vs. committed?).

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 that covers the core purpose and key optional features. Every word earns its place – no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and the fact that the input schema is well-documented (100% coverage, required fields listed), the description is adequate. It would benefit from mentioning that 'projectNumber' is required and must exist, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds that status and priority can be set initially, but the schema already describes their valid values. The description does not clarify the relationship between project and valid status/priority values beyond what the schema states.

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 a specific verb ('create') and resource ('activity (draft item) in a board'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_projects', 'update_activity', or 'delete_activity'. The addition of 'optionally set an initial status and priority' further specifies what the tool does.

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 implies basic usage (creating a draft with optional status/priority) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_activity' for modifying existing items, or prerequisites such as needing a valid 'projectNumber'.

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