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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: omitted fields remain untouched, and an empty prompt string clears the prompt. It does not cover permissions or response behavior, but the annotations already establish the non-read-only, non-destructive profile.

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 front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence serves a purpose. It explains the main operation, the partial-update convention, and prompt clearing without unnecessary detail.

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 rich schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete for an update tool. It omits mentioning the visibility parameter and does not distinguish the tool from all related siblings, but those details are covered by the schema or are minor.

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 documents all five parameters, including visibility and board_id. The description reinforces prompt and omit/clear semantics but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: editing board metadata and/or the board-level agent prompt. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as set_board_setting or update_board_file.

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?

It clearly says to use this tool to edit board metadata and the prompt, and explains that only supplied fields are changed. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives for related operations like set_board_setting.

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