Create a board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces non-idempotency with a concrete consequence ("calling it twice makes two") and discloses the return payload (board id, central idea id, address). It also explains the outline-to-central-idea resolution rule, which no annotation covers, though it says nothing about permissions or folder-side effects beyond what the schema states.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then outline semantics, then non-idempotency, then return values, then the sibling redirect. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the response-payload clause overlaps slightly with what an output schema would normally carry.

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, the description compensates by naming the three return values, and it covers the one genuinely ambiguous input (outline structure) plus the re-invocation hazard. For a four-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: the rule that a single top line becomes the central idea while multiple top lines push the title into that role. That interpretation logic is not in the schema and directly affects how an agent should shape the outline argument.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a new board with a mind map") and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming add_nodes, add_mindmap and add_items as tools for existing boards. An agent can distinguish this from create_folder or add_items without opening any schema.

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 states the explicit when-not condition ("To add to an existing board use add_nodes, add_mindmap or add_items instead") and gives the alternative tool names. The non-idempotency warning ("calling it twice makes two") is exactly the guidance an agent needs before retrying a create call.

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