add_look_to_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that placement is positional. It says nothing about what happens if the look is already on the board (error vs. duplicate), whether the caller needs ownership or write permissions on the board, or whether the operation is undoable given the undo/redo tooling present among siblings.

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 zero filler — verb, artifact, target, and placement constraint in one pass. Nothing is repeated from the name and no sentence fails to earn 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and eight parameters, the description is too thin. It omits conflict handling, permission requirements, and the fact that required positioning parameters make this a layout-sensitive operation, all of which an agent needs before committing to a 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 100%, with every one of the 8 parameters documented in the schema including defaults for width/height, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'at a specific position' loosely maps to layoutX/layoutY but adds no syntax, units, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb (add), resource (look), and target container (look board) plus the resulting artifact (a button), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as bulk_create_look_board_buttons or update_look_board_button, leaving the agent to infer the singular-vs-bulk distinction from the name alone.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions the alternative of bulk_create_look_board_buttons for adding multiple buttons, nor does it say whether this should be used instead of create_look_board_with_buttons when setting up a new board, so the agent receives no routing signal.

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