create_board

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation aspect is covered. The description adds useful context about board placement and the follow-up step of adding typed columns, but does not disclose more behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or whether the board is initially empty.

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?

Two tight sentences, each earning their place: the first defines the action and scope, the second gives the next logical step. No wasted words and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 basics: what, where, and the next step. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it leaves gaps about what the returned board object looks like and what happens if the board is used without columns. Annotations cover safety hints, but the description could provide more operational detail for a creating action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates 'inside a project' maps to projectId, and 'Create a board' implies name, but it does not explain the description parameter or any format/constraints. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw 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 a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('a board'), and a clarifying definition ('a data table'). It also locates the action within a project and distinguishes it from create_column and create_project by explicitly mentioning 'Add typed columns with create_column afterwards.'

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 usage context: boards are created inside projects and should be followed by creating columns with create_column. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions that would select a sibling tool.

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