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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ownership constraint (agent-created meetings only) and the anonymous nature of the board, but as a mutation tool it says nothing about irreversibility, permission needs beyond ownership, or error/locking behavior when a stage transition is invalid.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the lifecycle detail following. Slight redundancy between the parenthetical workflow in sentence 1 and the stage list in sentence 2, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover both behavior and results. It adequately conveys the stage lifecycle and ownership scope, but omits the preset option and gives no indication of what the call returns or how invalid transitions are handled.

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 67% and both enums are already documented in the schema. The description adds semantic value by mapping the stage order collect→vote→result, but the 'preset' parameter (ideation/kpt/fourls) is never mentioned, and the distinction between 'start' and 'collect' remains ambiguous from the description alone.

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 ('익명 아이디어 보드'를 시작하거나 단계를 전환) and names the full workflow (브레인라이팅→도트 투표→결과). It implicitly separates itself from the read-oriented sibling get_board_results, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: the board operates only on a meeting '이 에이전트가 개설한' (created by this agent), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., vs get_board_results for reading state).

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