Register Board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety/idempotency are covered. The description adds real behavioral value the annotations don't: values are verified before acceptance, so a bad token/host fails at registration rather than silently yielding empty results later.

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?

Front-loaded imperative with the trigger condition first, then the URL-extraction guidance and the verification rationale. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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, and the description covers the genuinely tricky part (where the parameter values come from) plus validation behavior. Complete enough for correct invocation, though it doesn't say what happens after a successful registration.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond it by explaining how to derive the token/tenant/host/site values from careers URLs, with concrete Greenhouse and Workday URL shapes. That mapping is not in the schema.

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?

Specific verb (pin/register) plus resource (board), with the scoping condition 'when discovery can't guess it' that separates it from the find_board sibling. An agent immediately knows this is the manual-fallback path for board registration.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when discovery can't guess it'), which implicitly routes the agent to find_board first. It stops short of naming find_board or stating exclusions, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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