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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: that the board is created blank, the hand-off convention (`[[board:ID]]` alone on its own line), and the preference to use napkin_deck_write when content exists. It doesn't discuss rate limits or the response shape, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then routing, then usage, then hand-off syntax. Dense but every clause (the doc exclusion, the proactive trigger, the deck_write alternative, the `[[board:ID]]` format) carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

A create tool with no output schema and full param coverage needs only purpose, sibling routing, and invocation convention — all present. An agent has everything required to call it correctly and to hand the result back.

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 kind, name, and workspace (including the token/default-workspace rule). The description's mention of sketch/deck merely restates the kind enum, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured data. 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+resource ('Creates a blank Napkin board') and immediately scopes it to the two kinds (sketch/deck). It also explicitly excludes the closest-looking sibling, napkin_docs_create, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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 explicit when-to-use (user asks, or proactively when a sketch/deck carries the conversation better) plus when-not (written documents → napkin_docs_create) and a named alternative for a specific case (napkin_deck_write for a deck with content). Nothing is left to inference.

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