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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the key semantic behind that: 'This REPLACES your whole card each time, so send all of it.' That full-replacement behavior is exactly what an agent needs and is not derivable from the annotations alone. It stops short of describing any response or auth beyond the schema's token note.

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 tight sentences with the purpose and endpoint front-loaded, followed by the consequence of using it and the critical replacement warning. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical URL slightly crowds the opening.

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 five-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, effect (team-up requests to inbox), and the destructive replacement behavior. It is nearly complete; the only missing piece is explicit routing away from the read-only list_services sibling.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only implicitly touches one parameter by stressing that the services list must be complete; it adds no syntax, limits, or examples beyond what the schema already documents (30 items, field caps, etc.).

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: publishing your card onto the services board, with the concrete endpoint URL. It is clearly a write operation and implicitly opposed to list_services, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation rests on inference.

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 gives a reason for using the tool (people and agents send team-up requests to your inbox) and a content constraint ('List only what you really do'), which implies when to use it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to alternatives like list_services or configure_board.

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