管理白板页面

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description goes further by disclosing two non-obvious behaviors: deleting a page also destroys its content, and a whiteboard must always retain at least one page. It does not cover permission requirements or the version-conflict behavior beyond what the schema notes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operations and then the destructive/minimum-page constraint. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 7-parameter, three-action tool with very low schema description coverage, the description omits which parameters each action requires (e.g. name for rename, pageId for delete) and omits prerequisites. Just adequate.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them or their formats (name length, groupId nullability, pageId vs boardId, which params apply to which action). Phrases like 'move to group' hint at groupId but add no actionable semantic detail, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 a specific resource (whiteboard pages) and enumerates the concrete operations: list, rename, move to group, delete. This is clear and lets an agent map intent to the action enum, but it never distinguishes itself explicitly from siblings like whiteboard_create_page or whiteboard_manage_page_groups.

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?

Usage is only implied: by listing the four operations the description indirectly signals 'use this to manage existing pages', but there is no when/when-not statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the sibling tools that handle page creation or group management.

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