Plan work (break a request onto the board)

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

With annotations providing no hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool optionally creates a project and adds items, and returns all created tickets. However, it does not discuss side effects, permissions, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral 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 concise at three sentences, with the core action front-loaded. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) without losing conciseness.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description provides adequate but not thorough context. It explains the overall workflow but lacks details on return format, error handling, or interaction with existing projects.

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 only 20% (project has a description). The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'adds the features and bugs you list' but does not explain structure or defaults for parameters like createProject, bugs, features, or projectDescription.

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: 'Turn a user request into board items in one step.' It lists the actions (create project, add features and bugs) and distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning it as the first step for substantive requests.

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 explicitly says 'Use this as the FIRST step when starting a substantive request, then work the tickets one at a time.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and hints at subsequent steps, though it does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.

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