create_look_board_with_buttons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. 'In a single operation' vaguely hints at atomicity but never states whether the board and buttons are created transactionally, what happens if one button is invalid, or what permissions are required. That is a significant gap for a create operation.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence ('Allows defining an entire look board layout in one command') is a near-verbatim restatement of the first and does not earn its place. Front-loading is fine; content density is low.

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 an 8-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the 'what' but omits the behavioral details an agent needs: atomicity, failure behavior, and how it relates to the non-combined sibling tools. The rich schema compensates for parameter documentation but not for behavioral context.

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% and all 8 parameters (including nested button fields and defaults) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about button structure, grid/canvas defaults, or fade time 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+resource: create a look board together with its buttons. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like create_look_board, bulk_create_look_boards, or bulk_create_look_board_buttons, leaving the agent to infer that this is the combined single-shot variant. The second sentence largely restates the first.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. Given siblings such as create_look_board plus bulk_create_look_board_buttons, the description should say when the combined operation is preferable (e.g. atomic creation vs. two calls), but it offers no condition or exclusion.

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