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

Annotations cover safety (not read-only, not destructive, closed world). The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavioral context: the citation format [[doc:ID]] and the prohibition on citing as [[board:ID]]. It does not cover auth/workspace caveats or return shape, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the disambiguation, then usage, then citation rule. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a zero-required-param create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and the critical citation convention. Only gaps are the return value / resulting ID surface and workspace caveats, which the schema partially handles.

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 67%; the schema already documents body (with the hard-wrap rationale) and workspace (token behavior), while title has only min/max length. The description adds only that title and body are optional initial values, so it neither compensates for the title gap nor adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 (create a Napkin doc) and explicitly distinguishes it from two siblings by name (not a drawing canvas like napkin_boards_create, not slides like napkin_deck_write). The agent can route correctly 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?

Explicitly names alternatives and the condition that selects them ('Use for drafts the user asked you to start'), and gives post-creation citation guidance including a hard NEVER rule. Nothing left to inference.

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