board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions undo/redo and steps, plus paper as a colour or transparent, but it does not disclose which actions mutate or destroy data, permission requirements, reversibility, or return behavior.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with the main board context front-loaded and no redundant wording. The parenthetical parameter hints keep it dense, though they are readable and appropriately scoped.

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 nine-action, seven-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks per-action requirements, mutation safety details, and return-value context that an agent would need to invoke it reliably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully associates parameters with actions, such as new(width,height,name,paper), undo/redo(steps), and open(id), but it leaves gaps around action-specific required parameters, value formats, and the role of id or name in other actions.

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 names the resource (board) and enumerates specific actions including info, new, paper, rename, undo/redo, fit, list, and open. It is clear enough to understand the tool's scope, but it does not differentiate this multi-action board tool from the sibling open_board tool.

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 lists actions but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as open_board, edit_items, or layers. It also does not explain which action to choose in common board workflows or any prerequisites for each action.

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