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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: exact archived semantics (true removes from gallery, false restores it) and the operational note that boards skip approval and every change is attributed, which is useful audit behavior.

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 core action ('Edits a board's details') before parenthetical detail. The archive aside and attribution note each earn their place, though the sentence is somewhat dense with em-dashes and parentheticals.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the archive behavior, attribution, and id sourcing that an agent needs to call this correctly. It does not specify partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved) or permission requirements, leaving a modest gap.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining the archived flag's two-way behavior and confirming boardId sourcing from napkin_boards_list. The visibility enum and workspace override are already well documented in the schema, so combined coverage is strong; only 'name'/'description' semantics are left implicit.

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 ('Edits') and resource ('a board's details') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, visibility, archived). An agent can distinguish it from napkin_boards_create/get/view by name, though the description never explicitly names a sibling to route against.

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?

Provides a real when-to-use for the archive path ('the recovery move for a board you created by mistake or the user no longer wants') and points to napkin_boards_list for ids. However, it offers no exclusions, no guidance on when to prefer another sibling, and no prerequisites.

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