create_look_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It implies creation but says nothing about permissions, side effects, duplicate-name handling, or what happens to the 'custom layout' it references, leaving a significant gap.

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 compact sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is what leaves the other gaps unfilled.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the schema covers parameters, but there is no note on return values (e.g. a new board ID) or how it relates to near-identical siblings like create_look_board_with_buttons.

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 the seven parameters (gridSize, canvasWidth/Height, defaults, etc.) are fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'custom layout' loosely gestures at the canvas/grid parameters but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new look board') plus a purpose ('organizing looks with custom layout'), so the agent knows exactly what is being created. It does not, however, distinguish this from the very similar sibling create_look_board_with_buttons or bulk_create_look_boards.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (create_look_board_with_buttons). The agent is left to infer that this is the plain single-board creation path.

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