Create board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete REST endpoint (POST /index.php/apps/deck/api/v1.0/boards), which hints at the Deck app dependency and the mutation target, but it never says what a successful call returns, whether boards need unique titles, or what permissions are required.

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?

It is two short, front-loaded lines: the purpose and the key parameter caveat come first, with the endpoint path appended as reference. Nothing is padded, though the raw endpoint literal is of marginal use to an agent that already knows the tool 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?

For a two-parameter creator with no output schema, the description covers the essential intent and the one non-obvious formatting rule. It omits what the response contains (e.g. a board id an agent would need for follow-up calls like create_stack), whether titles must be unique, and any permission or app-enablement prerequisite, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does so for one of two parameters by specifying that "color" is a hex RGB value without a leading '#'. The "title" parameter and the schema's default of 0082c9 remain undocumented anywhere, so the coverage gap is only partly filled.

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 ("Create one board"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the read/list siblings such as nextcloud_list_boards and nextcloud_get_board. It stops short of naming the related creation siblings (create_stack, create_card) or clarifying that this creates a Deck board container, which is what would push it to a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the Deck app being enabled), and no mention of alternatives for organizing existing cards. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the single-line purpose; an agent gets no routing help beyond the obvious verb difference.

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