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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the description carries the real burden and does: it documents the full outline dialect, the layout enum, the `---` area-splitting rule, that unfilled layout areas stay as user-visible prompts, and the required `[[board:ID]]` citation after writing. It stops short of stating failure/overwrite behavior or limits, keeping it from 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-loads purpose and sibling routing before the format spec, and every sentence does work — the rules and example are load-bearing for a format-heavy tool. It is long, but far less could not specify this dialect; only mild trimming is possible.

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 3-param, no-output-schema writer, the definition is complete: authoring format, layout vocabulary, sibling disambiguation, and the post-write citation step that tells the user how to open the result. The remaining workspace/auth nuance is already carried by the schema's `workspace` description.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the schema's 'The markdown outline (dialect above)' by fully specifying the dialect, layout values, and bullet handling. It adds little for `name` and `workspace`, which the schema already covers, so it tops out at 4.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Creates a deck from a markdown outline') and immediately anchors it against two siblings: it is the writing counterpart to napkin_deck_outline and is explicitly NOT napkin_docs_create. An agent can route to it without opening any 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 when-not with the alternative named: a prose document ('write this up', 'draft a doc') belongs to napkin_docs_create instead. It also fixes the round-trip contract with napkin_deck_outline so the agent knows this is the write side of that dialect. Nothing essential 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.