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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses the exact destruction semantics ('issues a new one so the old one stops working'), the exposure surface ('Anyone with the link can view the board without an account'), the permission requirement (owner only), and the dry-run gate (confirm creates a preview). These map precisely onto the destructiveHint and openWorldHint flags rather than merely restating them.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information: action, exposure, authorization, and the confirm gate.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, destruction, exposure, and the confirmation preview. An agent has everything needed to call it safely; only return-value detail is absent, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 50% (confirm and regenerate documented; boardId and enabled not). The description compensates meaningfully by explaining the confirm preview gate and the regenerate effect, and 'on or off' clarifies enabled. boardId remains self-evident, so the gap is minor.

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 ('Turns a board's public read-only link on or off, or issues a new one') with the regeneration behavior called out explicitly. This is clearly distinct from generic board mutation siblings and from share_board/revoke_access because it targets the public read-only link specifically.

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 concrete prerequisites and conditions: 'Owner only' and 'Needs confirm: true; without it the result is a preview.' It does not explicitly route the agent to or away from the share_board/revoke_access siblings, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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