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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare write/openWorld/non-destructive. The description adds the return fields (ID and title), a free-plan quota constraint (counts toward 100 notes/images/links), that no one is notified so it can run without confirmation, and the undo path (drag to trash). That is exactly the behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (return value, quota, autonomy, undo, auth). Slightly dense with several clauses packed into one run-on sentence, 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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it creates, what it returns, the quota side effect, that no notification is sent, how to reverse it, and the API-key prerequisite.

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% and both parameters are already documented by the schema (url as the web address, board_id sourced from list_boards or the board URL). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (adds), resource (link card for a web address), and placement target (a board), which distinguishes it cleanly from milanote_add_note, milanote_add_todo_list and milanote_upload_image. An agent can select it without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the resource type (a web address goes on a board), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling add_* tools or any prerequisite conditions for choosing it. The 'runs without asking' note hints at autonomy but doesn't route between alternatives.

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