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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ~10-second propagation delay, the need for a secret token, and the immutability of layout. It does not cover error handling or idempotency, but it provides honest behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 description is three sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with purpose, then timing, then constraints. No redundant or verbose language.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers input details well and explains the propagation time. However, it does not mention the return value or error scenarios, leaving a minor gap for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description enhances meaning by explaining styleOverrides with examples, common keys, and the ability to remove overrides with null. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: changing a board's look without recreating it, specifying style preset and overrides. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create-board-tool and read-board-tool by focusing on visual updates while noting layout immutability.

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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool (changing look without recreation) and notes requirements like the secret pushToken and layout immutability. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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