Export or share a board

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses meaningful side effects: the app renders the file, may open the browser and switch to that board, the board itself is unchanged, and the file never overwrites an existing one (a number is appended). It also states the return content (save location and file size). This is exactly the behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and format guidance, then parenthetical detail on rendering behavior. Slightly long and the browser-switching aside is a touch verbose, but every sentence contributes information an agent would use.

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 stating what is returned (save path and size), along with format options, defaults, and side effects. 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 parameter definitions already carry the format enum semantics and the Downloads default. The description's format exposition largely restates the schema, adding only the note that a numbered name is used to avoid overwriting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Save a board as a file the person can share') and enumerates the supported output formats. It is clearly distinct from siblings like open_board, delete_board, and read_board, so an agent can route to it without opening the 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 gives concrete selection guidance for the format parameter ('html' for a shareable browser page, 'pdf' for printing, 'png' for an image, 'svg' for vector). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing, but no sibling performs the same export function, so there is little to disambiguate.

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