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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false): it discloses that delete is soft and restore reuses the same ref, that refs are permanent and never reused, that writes require permission to change tasks, and that update touches only the fields given. This is exactly the kind of operational nuance annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and definition before the action-by-action routing, and every sentence serves a function. It is dense for six actions but not padded; the prompt/skill definitions are justified given the ambiguity of the term 'prompt'.

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?

Covers all six actions, permission requirements for mutation, and return behavior (list returns summaries without bodies; get exposes body, notes, earlier versions) despite there being no output schema. For a 10-parameter multi-action tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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?

With 80% schema coverage the schema already documents most fields, but the description adds real meaning: kind defaults to prompt, '' clears notes/project, [] clears tags, and ref is required for get/update/delete/restore. Some of this overlaps the schema text, so it is not fully additive.

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 the resource precisely as the board's Skills and prompts library, then defines both terms so the agent knows the artifact class. The verb set (list/get/add/update/delete/restore) is explicit and the sibling names are all about unrelated artifacts (decisions, lessons, items), so this tool is easy to disambiguate.

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 clear when-to-use context ('save useful prompts here', 'check the library before writing a long prompt from scratch') and explicitly routes list-vs-get ('list returns summaries without bodies: call get with ref to read the body'). It does not state when NOT to use this tool or name non-overlapping alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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