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

Annotations already declare mutation, non-open-world, idempotent and destructive, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: an authorization requirement (the record must be editable by the signed-in user) and the precise blast radius ("Only the fields you pass are changed"), which meaningfully softens the destructiveHint framing. It does not say whether status transitions are reversible or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. The inline enumeration of the editable fields costs a few words while being incomplete, which slightly dilutes value density.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with rich annotations and full schema descriptions, the description covers the essentials but omits the `type` field, the feature-gating refusal condition, and any hint of what the call returns (there is no output schema to fall back on). Adequate, but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds only the partial-update rule. It is arguably misleading on parameters: it frames the editable surface as title and status while the schema also exposes an enum-constrained `type` that the description never mentions, so an agent skimming prose could miss a mutable field.

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+resource ("Update a storyboard") and narrows scope to the two edits it supports (retitle, workflow status), which separates it from create-storyboard/get-storyboard/list-storyboards by name convention. It never explicitly names a sibling, but the operation is unmistakable.

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 signed-in user can edit" gives a real permission precondition, and "Only the fields you pass are changed" signals partial-update behavior. Beyond that there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to get-storyboard or the create-* siblings for the cases where this tool is the wrong choice.

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