create_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation (create) but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or default behaviors like appending to the end of the board. The output schema exists but is not described in the tool description, so the agent gets no behavior details beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and object, making it easy to scan. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, so it is highly concise.

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 relatively simple create operation, the description is partially complete. The schema covers parameter semantics, and the output schema likely describes return values, so those aspects are covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral context that would be important for an agent deciding to invoke it, such as whether the board is required or how position defaulting works. It meets the minimum bar but leaves 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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (name, board, position) with their defaults and meanings. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline of 3, neither compensating nor detracting from the schema information.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'column on a board', making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like rename_column or delete_column, leaving some differentiation to inference from the name itself. It is more specific than a generic 'process' but less explicit than examples that include sibling references.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like renaming, moving, or deleting a column. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as requiring an active board, or when not to use it. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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