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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description only needed to add operational context — and it adds none. It never says whether omitted parameters leave values unchanged, what happens when several mutating fields are passed together, or that deletion is undoable (that detail lives in the schema, not here). For a destructive 12-parameter mutation tool this is a real gap.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action verbs and ends with the one non-obvious parameter fact. It wastes no words, though the terseness is arguably under-specification rather than discipline given 12 parameters.

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?

A destructive, zero-required-parameter mutation tool with 12 parameters, 33% schema coverage, and no output schema gets only one sentence and no return-value or partial-update semantics. An agent would not know how fields interact, what the tool returns, or how the artboard target is addressed.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping its verbs onto parameter clusters: resize→width/height, move→x/y, rename→name, recolour→background/tone. However it never explains the `artboard` target selector (integer or string), `show_background`, or what format `background` expects, and `notes` is the only parameter given any real explanation.

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 specific verbs (resize, move, rename, recolour, delete) against a specific resource (artboard), so the agent knows exactly what class of operation this is. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like add_artboard, set_active_artboard, resize, or fit_artboard, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.

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?

The enumerated verbs imply when to reach for this tool (any mutation of an existing artboard), but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for overlapping operations such as resizing or activating an artboard. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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