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

Annotations only declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description adds real value: it discloses that the created board is empty, that its board_id is the prerequisite for every other Shoot Board tool, and that no widget is rendered so the agent must narrate board state itself. It stops short of covering failure modes or what happens if the user abandons the flow.

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?

Front-loads the trigger and the core action in the first two sentences, then compresses the client-behavior note and parameter gloss tightly. The trailing parameter line is largely redundant with the schema, which is the only slight waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (board_id) and its downstream role, and it tells the agent how to proceed in a no-widget client. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and follow up correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly (including the 'file'/'files' alias and min_items default). The description's gloss ('prompt: one line describing the shoot; expected_types: what it needs') adds only marginal meaning over that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new, empty Uwear Shoot Board') plus the key output ('returns its board_id'), which reconciles the otherwise confusing mismatch between the tool name 'request_user_context' and the title 'New Shoot Board'. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like modify_shoot_board or search_uwear_library without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants a photoshoot and you have no board_id yet') and names the follow-up tools to use instead (search_uwear_library, modify_shoot_board, propose_brief). It also states the client-specific behavior to follow when no widget is shown, which is a concrete when/when-not instruction.

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