blipboard

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

Discloses key behaviors: returns URL and secret pushToken, notes that the URL is the board itself and is safe to share, and that no account is needed. With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable context 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action ('Create a new...') and efficiently captures key points.

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 simple creation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what is returned, that no account is needed, and what the URL represents. Could mention uniqueness constraints or rate limits, but not essential.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters; schema already describes name as human-readable and layoutId with enum and default. Description adds no additional parameter details.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates a new Blipboard split-flap display board. Distinguishes from sibling tools (delete, push, read, update) by specifying the action and the returned outputs (URL, secret pushToken).

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?

States 'No account needed,' providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for a creation 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 carries full weight. It discloses permanent deletion, cascading to all scenes, requirement of secret pushToken, and irreversibility. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but covers key behavioral traits adequately.

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 exceptionally concise: three short sentences that immediately convey the action, prerequisite, and consequence. No unnecessary words or information.

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 simple destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, prerequisites, and irreversibility. It could be improved by mentioning expected results or error conditions, but it is largely 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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (boardUrl and pushToken). The description only restates the requirement of pushToken without adding new semantic information, so it adds little 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: 'Permanently delete a Blipboard board and all its scenes.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (board), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, push, read, and 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 prerequisite (pushToken) and the irreversible nature, providing clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update-board-tool, though the context implies this is for permanent deletion.

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 bears full disclosure responsibility. It reveals default replacement behavior, option to append, playlist rotation, and detailed scene formatting. It does not hide destructive aspects (replacement is clearly stated). Minor missing details like rate limits or return behavior are acceptable.

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 front-loaded with the core action and key behavior. While it includes extensive detail about scenes, each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but the length is justified given the complexity of the scenes parameter.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error handling). It covers input parameters well and behavioral aspects, but for completeness, an agent might need to know if it returns anything. This is a moderate gap.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: e.g., explains scenes array structure in detail (line placement, emoji rendering, animation frames). This extra context helps agents understand parameter semantics beyond the basic 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 action ('Push text scenes to a Blipboard board') and explains its primary behavior (replaces previous scenes by default, rotates as a playlist). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create-board, update-board, etc., which handle board creation, deletion, reads, and updates.

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 specifies that a board's secret pushToken is required, implying a prerequisite (board must exist via create-board). It explains when to use (to push scenes) and differentiates from update-board (which updates board settings, not scenes). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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?

Adds value beyond annotations by specifying the read operation details (layout and scene playlist) and the absence of a pushToken requirement. No contradiction.

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?

Single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key usage note without any 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, key behavioral details, and a crucial prerequisite.

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% with a clear parameter description; the tool description adds no additional parameter information, meeting baseline.

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?

Clearly states verb ('Read') and resource ('board'), specifies outputs (layout, active scene playlist), and distinguishes from sibling tools (create, delete, update, push).

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 says 'No pushToken needed', implying a key difference from other tools, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not.

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?

No annotations so description covers behavioral traits: change propagation delay (~10 seconds), layout immutability, requirement for pushToken. Disclosure is adequate but does not mention side effects or rate limits.

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 plus a list of common keys. Every sentence adds value; front-loaded with 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 5 parameters (including nested object) and no output schema, description sufficiently explains inputs and behavior (propagation delay, immutability). Minor omissions: no return value info, but acceptable without output schema.

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 covers all 5 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining merging behavior of styleOverrides, null removal, and listing common keys. Exceeds schema baseline.

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?

Description states specific verb (change) and resource (board's look), distinguishes from recreating the board. Clearly different from sibling tools (create, delete, push scenes, read).

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?

Implies use for updating appearance without recreating, and mentions prerequisite (pushToken). Lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance, but sibling context makes usage clear.

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