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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the width is clamped to [200, 480] and applies to all columns. It does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting the previous width or the need for an access key on locked boards, but the schema covers the access key condition.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and range, then provides a clear pointer for reading the current value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, mutation, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior, the clamp, and how to get the current value. It does not delve into error handling or locked board specifics, but the schema and annotations cover the access key condition, so the description is adequate.

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 67%, with width and access_key documented in the schema. The description adds semantic clarity for the width parameter (shared, clamped, read current from list_tasks) and clarifies that board_id refers to a 'todo' board, but it does not explain board_id further or compensate for its missing schema description. Overall, it adds some 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 states exactly what the tool does: set the shared kanban column width in pixels for a 'todo' board, with all columns sharing one width. It is specific about the resource and action, and the clamp range adds detail. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like update_column or set_board_mode.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to adjust column width for a 'todo' board) and even advises reading the current value from list_tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases like locked boards.

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