Create board section

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds the required OAuth scope ('boards:write'), which is genuine auth context beyond the annotations. It stops short of noting the ad_account_id shared-asset behavior or what a successful call returns.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the scope constraint following immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents all three parameters. However, for a mutation tool the description omits failure behavior, idempotency implications, and the business-account nuance already hinted at by ad_account_id, leaving it only minimally viable.

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 100%, so board_id, name, and ad_account_id are fully documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Add a section to a board'), which clearly distinguishes it from the update/delete/list section siblings by name convention. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the create-vs-update distinction, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Scope: boards:write') but no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over pinterest_update_board_section or pinterest_create_board, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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