create_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate board names, or what the response looks like (e.g., returns board ID). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 zero waste—'Create a new Kanban board' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple creation tool. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 complexity (creation operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral aspects, or what to expect upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 by explaining parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema shows required 'board_name' (string) and 'columns' (array of strings), but the description doesn't clarify what these represent (e.g., board_name format, columns as initial column names). This leaves parameters semantically undocumented.

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 'Create a new Kanban board' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (Kanban board), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_boards' (read) and 'add_task' (modify), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential creation tools. The specificity of 'Kanban board' adds clarity beyond just 'board'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing board creation permissions), when not to use it (e.g., if a board already exists), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_boards' for checking existing boards first. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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