add_board

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

Extraordinarily candid about side effects beyond the annotations: adding an existing entry only updates its name, the watchlist file is created if absent, the file is rewritten with a .bak copy kept, and hand-written comments are lost. The idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations are consistent with these statements.

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 primary action and downstream consequence are front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information (prerequisite, idempotency, file creation, rewrite caveat). The prerequisite sentence is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema needed for a file-mutation tool, the description still covers the mutation's side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, and data-loss caveat. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

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 100%, so both 'name' and 'entry' are already documented with format examples in the schema. The description references the source:board format via find_board/list_boards but adds no syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a company's board to the watchlist') and immediately names the downstream effect (fetch_jobs checks it from now on), which distinguishes it from siblings like find_board and list_boards that only read boards.

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 explicit prerequisites and workflow routing: find the entry with find_board first and verify sample titles, plus the warning that a guessed board name may belong to another company. It doesn't name when-not-to-use, but the sequencing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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