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

Annotations only flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent at a high level; the description goes well beyond them by explaining the Unsorted-panel landing spot, privacy inheritance from the parent board, that nobody is notified, and the undo path (move to Milanote trash). It is also consistent with destructiveHint=true via the explicit undo instruction.

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?

Front-loaded with the creation action and return value, then supporting behavior. Five sentences is on the longer side, but each conveys a distinct behavioral fact rather than restating the schema.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema; the description fills that gap by naming the return value (board_id), describing visibility/notification side effects, and giving the undo path. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for parent_board_id: nesting under a shared parent exposes the new board to that parent's editors, while Home keeps it private. That consequence is not stated in the schema and informs parameter choice.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus placement scope ('New board on your Home or nested inside another board'), and states it creates an *empty* board and returns a board_id. This distinguishes it from siblings like duplicate_board or get_board without naming them 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?

The phrase 'returns its board_id for the tools that add cards' implies a create-then-populate workflow, which is useful context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus duplicate_board, or prerequisites, 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.