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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: plan/ownership auth requirements, the read-only-unless-canEdit access model, the external-server session flow, and critically the confirm:true gate with preview-by-default behavior. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before calling a mutation that exposes a board externally.

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 dense sentences that front-load the purpose before the constraints and the confirm gate. The parentheticals are information-packed rather than wasteful, though the second and third sentences are slightly run-on.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers what is created, who may create it, the access model, the dry-run gate, and the downstream session flow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 60%; the description adds meaning for canEdit ('read-only unless canEdit') and restates the origins cap, complementing the schema's own descriptions of confirm and origins. The name and boardId parameters remain unexplained in both places, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('show this board in an iframe' via an embed) and names the exact mechanism, distinguishing it from sibling list_embeds and revoke_embed. The parenthetical constraints (Pro, owner only) sharpen rather than obscure the purpose.

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 clear preconditions for use: Pro plan, board owner, and an external app whose server will request a session via the REST API. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. revoke_embed for teardown), but the context is strong enough to select the tool correctly.

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