add_board

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait beyond the schema: the server fetches the board to validate the token and capture its board ID. But it omits what happens on an invalid token, whether the config persists, or whether the operation is idempotent/reversible.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste, front-loading the action and following with the server-side behavior that matters most to the caller.

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 simple two-param add tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key verification behavior adequately. Only failure/error semantics and persistence details are missing, which keeps it from a 5.

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 parameters (name, token) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by name and API token' merely restates them and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add a new board') plus the mechanism ('by name and API token'), clearly distinguishing it from read/remove siblings like get_board, list_boards, and remove_board. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 ('Add a new board to the config'), making it evident this is the tool for registering a board. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the sync_board_ids or list_boards siblings that might otherwise be relevant.

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