create_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden yet discloses only that the result is empty. It doesn't say what happens if the path already exists (overwrite/error), whether permissions are needed, where the file is written, or that the live-app path is undoable — even though that undo detail is documented in the schema, not here.

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 with a useful parenthetical identifying the artifact type, and zero padding. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than over-elaboration.

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 file-creating mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented `name` parameter, the description is too thin. An agent can't determine return behavior, overwrite semantics, or the relationship to save_board from this text alone.

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 only 50%: `path` is well documented but `name` has no description anywhere, and the description doesn't compensate by explaining what `name` controls (file label vs. board title). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb (creates) and resource (an empty board / .inkboard file), which is unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like save_board or import_mermaid, so an agent must still infer whether this is a 'new blank file' vs. a save/import operation.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative for cases like saving an existing board (save_board) or creating pages inside a board (add_page). The only contextual hint — live editing when the app is open — lives in the schema, not the description.

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