Publish board

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

Annotations declare this a destructive, open-world, non-read-only write, and the description earns its keep by explaining exactly what the exposure means: anyone with the link sees the board and the boards nested inside it, without an account. It also discloses link persistence (one link per board, the same link returns even after unpublish). What it does not disclose is the permission level required or whether re-publishing with different settings mutates the live link for existing viewers.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its audience consequence, then the link-persistence rule and the inverse tool. Four sentences, all doing work, with only mild redundancy between the opening clause and the 'without a Milanote account' restatement.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states that the tool returns the link, describes what viewers of that link can see, and covers lifecycle behavior on re-publish. Missing only authorization requirements and whether the two optional flags can be changed later without republishing, which matters for a destructive public-exposure operation.

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 both optional flags (allow_comments, allow_downloads) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to them as 'these settings' and adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond that, so it hits the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 (turn on a board's read-only link) and immediately distinguishes it from the inverse operation by naming unpublish_board and describing what it does. An agent can tell this apart from get_sharing, export_board, and invite_editor without opening any schema.

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 context for use (share a board publicly, no signup required) and explicitly routes to unpublish_board for turning it off. It does not cover preconditions such as who is allowed to publish, nor when to prefer invite_editor over a public link, so it stops short of a full when/when-not matrix.

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