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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that: a template 'passt sich der Klassenstufe an', i.e. content is auto-adjusted to the class grade. It says nothing about whether the new board becomes the active/visible one or what happens when no template is given.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause (class link, template, grade adaptation) carries information. The nested parenthetical makes it slightly dense 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 create tool with no output schema, all-optional parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient: it explains the two meaningful options. Missing is what a caller gets back (board ID?) and the behavior when no template is supplied — minor gaps rather than blocking ones.

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% — name and class_id have no schema description — but the description compensates partially by clarifying that class_id ties the board to a class and that template drives grade-level adaptation, while the template schema entry explains the ID formats. The required 'name' parameter is never addressed, so the gap is only partly closed.

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 names the action and resource (a new board/screen) and adds two scoping facts: it can be attached to a class and built from a template. That is enough to distinguish it from update_board, delete_board, clear_board and apply_template, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement about when to call this rather than update_board, apply_template or save_template, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only cues are the optional parameters, which is implicit usage at best.

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