Plan work (break a request onto the board)

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool optionally creates a project, returns all created tickets, and mentions the etaHints feature (eta estimates and totalEta roll-up). While it doesn't cover error handling or partial failures, it provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 very concise (four sentences) with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, return value, and a specific behavioral note. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 (5 parameters, nested arrays) and lack of output schema, the description sets reasonable expectations. It covers the main behavior, optional project creation, and return of tickets. However, it could be improved by noting error handling, limits, or the format of returned tickets.

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 coverage is only 20%, and the description does not detail each parameter's meaning beyond what is in the schema. However, it does clarify that the `dependsOn` indices refer to the combined list (features then bugs), and mentions the optional project creation. This adds some value but is insufficient for the low coverage.

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 purpose: breaking a request into board items (features and bugs) in one step, optionally creating a project. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by calling it the 'FIRST step' and a bulk operation, contrasting with individual ticket creation tools like 'add_feature' or 'log_bug'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this as the FIRST step when starting a substantive request, then work the tickets one at a time.' This tells the agent to use this tool before individual ticket operations, implying it should not be used for small or single-item requests.

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