brand_boards_create_brand_board

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the created brand board is immediately available, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response shape is (especially since there is no output schema). The description is purely a single verb phrase with no disclosure beyond the annotation-provided flags.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified—it lacks any elaboration that would earn its place beyond stating the obvious. It is not verbose, but it is so minimal that it feels more like a label than a helpful description. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity limits its usefulness.

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 has nine parameters, no output schema, and no usage context, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the caller should provide (beyond the schema), what the result is, or any dependencies like locationId or parentId. The schema covers parameter details, but the description leaves the agent without a sense of the overall workflow or expectations.

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 all nine parameters are documented in the input schema with their own descriptions. The tool description itself mentions none of them, so it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither helps nor hinders parameter understanding.

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 'Create a new brand board' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (brand board), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete, get, and update. It is a proper clause rather than a tautology, though it closely mirrors the tool name and title. It does not add any additional context about what a brand board is or what creation entails, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updating or getting a brand board. It does not mention prerequisites, like the need for a locationId, nor any conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice. An agent must infer entirely from the name that this is for creating new records, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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