yuque_create_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It notes the HTTP method (POST) but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether the document must exist, what happens to the DSL on error, or what the response contains. The pointer to an external markdown reference ('详见 references/api/board_api.md') does not help an agent that cannot read that file inline.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with verb, resource, and the three supported board types; the endpoint is a compact second clause. The trailing Chinese reference to an external file is low-value for most agents but does not bloat the text significantly.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits side effects, error conditions, and return information, and relies on an out-of-band doc reference. An agent has enough to attempt the call but not enough to call it confidently.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the mutually exclusive doc_id/url pair and the insert_after_lake_id behavior. The description's only added value is repeating the board type values, so the 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 ('Create a board resource (mindmap/flowchart/architecture diagram) in a document') and names the endpoint, so an agent knows it produces a board artifact embedded in a doc. It does not explicitly name a sibling like yuque_update_board or yuque_get_board to differentiate itself, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all – no statement that this is for creating a new board versus modifying one with yuque_update_board, no prerequisites about the target document, and no mention of required permissions. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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