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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write, and the description adds real context consistent with them: nothing on the board is changed or removed, the teacher can undo, and text with errors is silently not added. It doesn't say what the call returns on success, so the picture is nearly but not fully complete.

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?

The core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries scope, mode, prerequisite, or safety information. The inline quoted place labels make it read slightly like prose notes rather than a clean spec, but nothing is wasted.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is added, where it lands, the validation gate, and reversibility. The main residual gap is any statement about the response or what happens to the live link session after the addition.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the same explanation of the place enum. The description restates place with added illustrative examples, which is modest value over the schema, and says nothing extra about link or text beyond what the schema covers.

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: it adds board text to the board the teacher currently has open, behind a live link. It is distinguishable from check_board (a prerequisite) and implies it is not a full-board replacement like publish_board, but it never names publish_board or read_board as alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance through the two place modes and their intents (next step/hint/drawing vs exercises/answers/new topic), plus a hard prerequisite: call check_board first or the text is rejected. It lacks an explicit rule for when to use this instead of publish_board.

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