blipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no account is needed, the board is safe to share, the pushToken is secret, and the layoutId is immutable after creation. It does not mention potential errors or idempotency, but the core traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying significant information: action, return values, safety, and immutability. No fluff or redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: creation, return values, no account requirement, layout immutability, and the hint to use push-scenes-tool later. Complete for the tool's context.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema provides (name and layoutId descriptions are already clear), but it provides helpful context (e.g., 'no account needed') that is not parameter-specific.

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 it creates a new Blipboard split-flap display board, specifies the return values (display URL and secret pushToken), and distinguishes from sibling tools (delete, push, read, update). The verb 'create' and resource 'board' are specific.

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 implies when to use (for creating a board to later push content) and notes that no account is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is clear and it hints at the next step (using push-scenes-tool).

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

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

With no annotations, the description appropriately discloses destructive behavior ('permanently delete', 'cannot be undone') and auth requirement. No rate limits or other side effects are mentioned, but for a simple delete action, this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences covering purpose, requirement, and consequence. No wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers the purpose, irreversible nature, and auth requirement for a simple delete operation. No output schema needed, and sibling tools are well differentiated.

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%, and the description adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides for both parameters. Thus, baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'delete', the resource 'Blipboard board and all its scenes', and adds critical details about permanence and auth requirement. It is easily distinguished from siblings like create, read, update.

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 mentions the required pushToken and the irreversible nature, implying preconditions and warnings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the name and context make it clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of transparency. It discloses key behaviors: scenes replace previous scenes by default, rotate as a playlist, require a pushToken, and the source identifier controls ownership. It lacks details on error handling or idempotency but is otherwise thorough.

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 highly concise: two sentences for purpose and general behavior, followed by one detailed paragraph for the scenes parameter. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the most critical info.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested scenes array) and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, token requirement, and scene structure. It is missing return value details and error handling, but the schema descriptions also aid understanding, making it fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema, such as explaining scene replacement/append behavior, rotation as a playlist, and clarifying the scene object structure with examples. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair ('Push text scenes to a Blipboard board') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools, which are all about board CRUD operations. It immediately establishes the tool's unique function of pushing content to a board.

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 explains default behavior (replace vs. append) and rotation as a playlist, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which is acceptable given the distinct nature of sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behaviors. The description adds value by specifying what is read (layout and active scene playlist) and noting that no pushToken is needed, which clarifies authentication requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and outputs; the second adds a concise usage note.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the main outputs (layout and active scene playlist) but lacks detail on their structure. It is mostly complete for a read-only tool.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the boardUrl parameter. The description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it reads a board's layout and active scene playlist, which is specific and distinguishes it from mutation siblings (create, delete, push-scenes, update).

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 implies read-only usage but doesn't explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. The sibling context helps, but explicit guidance like 'Use this to inspect a board without modifying it' is missing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ~10-second propagation delay, the need for a secret token, and the immutability of layout. It does not cover error handling or idempotency, but it provides honest behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with purpose, then timing, then constraints. No redundant or verbose language.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers input details well and explains the propagation time. However, it does not mention the return value or error scenarios, leaving a minor gap for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description enhances meaning by explaining styleOverrides with examples, common keys, and the ability to remove overrides with null. This adds significant value 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: changing a board's look without recreating it, specifying style preset and overrides. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create-board-tool and read-board-tool by focusing on visual updates while noting layout immutability.

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 provides context for when to use the tool (changing look without recreation) and notes requirements like the secret pushToken and layout immutability. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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