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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: confirm:true is required or nothing is sent and a preview is returned, responses have secrets removed, and only specific endpoint families are reachable. These details materially affect how an agent must invoke the tool and are not available from the structured annotations alone.

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 dense but front-loads the core operation and then groups route-specific details compactly. It could be more scannable with bullets, but nearly every sentence carries necessary constraint or body-shape 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 generic, multi-endpoint create tool, the description covers reachable routes, required confirmation, authentication behavior, and response sanitization. It does not describe the successful return shape when confirm:true is passed, and there is no output schema to cover that 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the nested body parameter is only described as 'The JSON body the route documents.' The description compensates by enumerating the supported body shapes for each reachable route and clarifying that path must be a Decknote-relative path, not a full URL.

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 states a specific operation (create via POST) and enumerates the exact reachable resource routes: boards, cards, and board embeds. It is clear enough to distinguish this as a generic API-create tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling high-level creators like create_board, create_task, or create_embed.

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?

It provides implicit when-to-use guidance by listing the reachable routes and constraints, such as authentication and internal endpoints being unavailable. However, it never states when an agent should choose this generic API tool over the dedicated create_board, create_task, or create_embed siblings.

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