flow_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one useful behavioral detail - that open_in_browser launches the board in this computer's default browser - but it never says where the HTML file is written, whether an existing board is overwritten, or whether any project state is mutated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action and its contents, followed by a compact args list. Nothing is padded, though the prose sentence could name the artifact type (file path/URL) rather than spending all its budget on the contents list.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, so the definition is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is that nothing is said about the result of the write - file location, path or URL returned, or overwrite behavior - which an agent needs in order to chain this call.

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 compensate, and it does: 'open_in_browser' is explained as also opening it in the default browser on this computer, and 'project_name' is explained as selecting the project with the active project as default. Both parameters get meaning the bare schema titles do not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write the project's HTML board') and enumerates what the board contains (ingredients, storyboard with players, audio, latest film), which is far more concrete than the name alone. It does not contrast itself with siblings like flow_review or flow_storyboard_render, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent can infer this produces a final shareable board artifact, but nothing says whether to call flow_review or flow_storyboard_render first, or when this should be skipped.

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