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

The description discloses rich behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations: all-or-nothing transactionality, one realtime event, server-side application of native sizes/colors/text placement, auto-arrangement behavior, and the rule that connector anchors are computed by the UI rather than coordinates. This goes well beyond what the annotations reveal.

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?

The description is densely informative with no filler. Each sentence covers a distinct concern: batch semantics, server-side defaults, coordinate handling, frames, connectors, and workspace requirements. Key behavioral points are front-loaded before optional detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity — 6 top-level params, 15 element types, refs, connectors, arrangement options, and no output schema — the description covers all necessary invocation aspects. It explains atomicity, defaults, ref resolution, layout control, connector rules, and licensing. Nothing essential for correct use 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains the effect of omitting x/y, maps arrange/origin_x/origin_y/gap to auto-arrangement, clarifies parent_id vs parent_ref resolution, and explains that connectors bind by uid/ref and never coordinates. This materially helps an agent choose and fill parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Create up to 100 whiteboard elements in one transactional call" — this clearly identifies what the tool does and its batch/atomic nature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_whiteboard and update_whiteboard_elements by focusing on elements and batch semantics.

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 description gives concrete usage direction: omit x/y for auto-arrangement, provide x/y for full control, and explains when to use refs vs IDs for frames and connectors. It also states a prerequisite (Pro or trial workspace). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-batch or single-element cases, so it stops just short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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