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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds the return value ('returns the board and its id'), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about name uniqueness, what happens if the same name is created twice, or how workspace/plan selection affects the call.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The kind enumeration partially restates the schema enum, though the parenthetical glosses justify its inclusion.

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 create tool with safety annotations, this covers action, board semantics, allowed kinds, and return value. It falls short only on edge cases such as duplicate names and workspace prerequisites that the schema mentions but the description does not reinforce.

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 75% and the enum for 'kind' is already documented, so the schema does most of the work. The description's glosses ('site_page (landing pages)', 'company (brands)') add modest meaning beyond the bare enum values but nothing about name constraints or the workspace/project parameters.

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 ('Create a named board in the user's Sightglass collection') and clarifies what a board contains, which no sibling name conveys. It does not explicitly contrast with sightglass_update_board or sightglass_delete_board, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer sightglass_update_board, and no note on when workspaceId/projectId must be supplied. The description implies creation within a user's collection but leaves selection conditions to inference.

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