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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the destination is a private account board mirrored to an external website, and the call needs an account plus write scope. However, the annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description's 'Save' framing never explains what gets destroyed or why repeats are non-idempotent — the single most important behavioral question for this call is left unanswered.

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, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by prerequisites. No filler or repetition of schema constraints.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the auth/exposure facts are covered. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with four entirely undocumented parameters — including an apparent either/or board selector — the description leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the semantics and does not. It never explains the board_id vs board_name relationship (the schema requires neither, so the agent must infer one is needed), nor what the note parameter is for.

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 ('Save reviewed scenes to a private account board') and names the destination surface (Launchscene website). It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like list_boards or get_scene, though it never names the counterpart tool an agent would use to find 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?

'Save reviewed scenes' implies a post-review moment and 'Requires an account and write scope' states a prerequisite, so some usage context is present. But there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do when the board doesn't exist yet, and no pointer to the sibling that lists boards.

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