Create board

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses the visibility model — private unless the parent is shared, in which case the parent's editors can open it — plus that nobody is notified and that undo is done by trashing the board in Milanote. This is exactly the mutation context annotations cannot carry, and it is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Four compact sentences that front-load scope, then return value, placement, visibility, and undo. The opening sentence is a sentence fragment, and the 'drag it onto the canvas' detail is arguably UI trivia, but nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (board_id), placement/default parent, visibility inheritance, notification behavior, and reversibility. An agent has everything needed to call it and to warn a user about side effects.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning on top by explaining that parent_board_id defaults to Home and that the chosen parent also governs inheritance of sharing visibility. Title semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 ('Creates an empty board') and immediately distinguishes it from duplicate_board by emphasizing 'empty'. It also tells the agent what the call yields — a board_id used by the card-adding tools — so the tool's role in the workflow 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?

Gives clear selection context: create at Home by default or nest under an existing board via parent_board_id, and notes the board lands in the Unsorted panel where it must be dragged onto the canvas. It never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. duplicate_board for an existing layout), so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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