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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so credit goes to the description for disclosing behavior beyond them: the backend derives an English prompt_prefix_en, and richer field input yields more consistent downstream images/clips. It stops short of stating duplicate-name behavior, whether the call is idempotent, or what is returned.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and then the two pieces of non-obvious context (derived prefix, project binding). Every sentence carries information not present in the structured fields.

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 an 11-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description explains input semantics and downstream effects well, but says nothing about what the call returns (e.g. the new location id that later tools need), which is the remaining gap for a caller to chain correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: project_id is recommended and its omission has the concrete consequence of invisibility to lab_list_project_locations, and the free-text fields are framed as driving prompt_prefix_en quality.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a location board'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by naming lab_list_project_locations and its visibility rule. An agent can tell it apart from lab_get_location, lab_delete_location, and lab_create_project without opening a schema.

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?

It gives concrete when-to guidance: pass project_id to bind the board, with an explicit exclusion ('unbound boards are invisible to lab_list_project_locations'). It does not route against other creation tools (e.g. lab_create_character / lab_create_project), so it stops short of full alternative handling.

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