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

Annotations already flag this as a non-readOnly, destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, and the description adds genuinely new context on top: omitted fields are left unchanged (patching semantics), collaborator boards are write-blocked for the caller, and privacy is immutable because flipping secret would hide all Pins. It also spells out a required human-confirmation step before calling, which the annotations do not express.

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?

Purpose and the primary constraint are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information; nothing is filler. It is a single dense paragraph, though, and the account-disambiguation rule plus the boardId provenance warning would scan faster as distinct clauses or bullets.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies everything an agent needs to call correctly: ID provenance, partial-update semantics, blocked board classes, excluded field, and the account-choice protocol.

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 covers each parameter's type and source. The description nonetheless adds constraints absent from the schema, notably the 'at least one of name or description' rule (the schema only requires accountId and boardId) and the instruction that boardId must come from list_boards and never be a collaborator entry or a board name/URL.

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 concrete verb and resource plus the exact editable scope: rename a Pinterest board or change its description, keyed by boardId. This clearly separates it from create_board, delete_board, update_board_section and update_board_list without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use (collaborator board IDs belong to someone else and must not be passed here), a precondition (at least one of name or description), and an account-selection rule (ask the user when list_accounts returns more than one). It also names the alternative route for privacy changes, which is out of scope here.

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