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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it explains that lesson-specific state (groups, drawn names, votes, points) is cleared, which tells the agent what side effects to expect from saving.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core action plus the overwrite rule are front-loaded. Nothing meaningful 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the main effect and the overwrite path but omits what name/description do and what the tool returns. Adequate, but leaves real gaps for an agent calling it with non-default arguments.

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 25% — board_id is documented, but name, description, and template_id are not. The description compensates partially by explaining the template_id format ('u<Zahl>') and its overwrite semantics, but leaves name and description entirely unexplained, so coverage remains incomplete.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Speichert einen Bildschirm ... als eigene Vorlage') and enumerates what the snapshot captures (Widgets, Anordnung, Hintergrund, Stil). An agent can distinguish it from apply_template or save_stack by the 'own template' framing, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 states one important usage rule: supplying template_id overwrites that existing template rather than creating a new one. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over apply_template/create_board, nor when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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