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

Annotations already cover the mutation safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the PRO+ plan gate requirement and the mutually-exclusive parent scoping rule, neither of which is derivable from annotations. It stops short of describing the returned entity or side effects.

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 short, information-dense clauses with the resource first, then parameter constraints, then the plan gate. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical default notation is slightly cryptic.

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 6-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the required name, the exclusivity rule, defaults for the bulk parameters, and the plan gate. The main omission is any indication of what is returned on success, but that is a minor gap for a straightforward create operation.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by documenting the two undocumented ID parameters' relationship (exactly one of projectId/proposalId), plus restating the elements default and appState optionality. It does not cover the 'description' field, so it does not fully close the gap, but it meaningfully exceeds the schema.

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 and resource ('Create a whiteboard') and immediately scopes it with the exactly-one-of projectId/proposalId constraint, which clearly separates it from get_whiteboard/update_whiteboard/list_whiteboards. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'Must specify exactly one of projectId or proposalId' rule is a real usage constraint that guides invocation. However, there is no statement of when to use this tool versus update_whiteboard or list_whiteboards, nor prerequisites beyond the plan gate, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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