create_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates an HTML file and places it on the canvas, and it names the available templates with their meanings. However, it omits important behavior such as the default template if omitted, what happens when x/y/w/h are not supplied, whether existing files are overwritten, and what is returned.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the template list and a practical post-creation hint. Every sentence contributes information, and the template enumeration is compact and necessary for selecting the enum value.

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 eight-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers purpose and template options but not geometry or placement semantics, page/title behavior, or return values. It is adequate to understand what the tool does at a high level but insufficient to call it correctly without inspecting the schema further.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It does add valuable meaning for the template enum by explaining each option (blank, mobile at 390×844, desktop at 1440×900, doc), which is beyond the bare enum. However, seven of the eight parameters—w, h, x, y, page, title, and file—receive little or no semantic explanation in the description, leaving clear gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a new board, described as an HTML file, from a template and place it on the canvas. This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like list_boards and read_board. However, it does not distinguish itself from place_board, which is a closely related sibling, leaving some ambiguity about whether creation and placement overlap.

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?

Usage is implied: create a new board when you need one from a template, then edit the created file directly afterwards. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus place_board, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The sentence 'Edit the created file directly afterwards' is a useful workflow hint but does not rise to explicit when/when-not guidance.

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