create_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the optional behaviors (setting a description, adding default lists) but does not mention expected return values, authentication requirements (though schema covers these), or potential side effects. The description adds some value but leaves missing context about what happens after creation.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 creation tool, the description covers the essential purpose and key optional parameters, and the schema documents all fields. It lacks an explicit mention of return values (no output schema exists), but the operation is straightforward. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning by referencing 'description' and 'default lists,' but it does not explain parameter syntax or behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Create a new Trello board.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making it instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_card or trello_create_list. Mentioning optional description and default lists further clarifies what the operation entails.

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 when to use the tool (when creating a board) but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this instead of X' or when not to use it. The context is clear from the name and purpose, but explicit guidance is absent.

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