create_app_endpoint

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining per-user row-level security, the X-App-User header, the 401 behavior, and that only the user's rows are returned/updated/deleted. It also clarifies that exposedColumns limits readable/writable columns, which is meaningful behavioral detail beyond readOnlyHint=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?

The description is dense and well-structured: core action with URL pattern first, then row-level security behavior, then a crisp usage signal. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition of schema fields.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral and configuration concepts needed to invoke it correctly. It could be more complete by explaining remaining optional fields and return behavior, but the key security model and endpoint shape are clearly conveyed.

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 0%, so the description bears responsibility for explaining parameters. It explains slug, exposedColumns, and rowLevelSecurity.enabled, but leaves appId, boardId, name, allowedMethods, organizationId, and filterByUserId to be inferred from schema property names. This partially compensates but not fully for the 8-parameter surface.

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: 'Expose a board as a REST endpoint of an app' with a concrete URL pattern. It clearly differentiates this from siblings like create_app or create_app_api_key by focusing on creating an endpoint for an existing app/board.

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?

The description gives a clear when-to-use signal: 'Use it whenever the app has its own users.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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