Update mutable post fields; null queue_rank explicitly un-ranks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| pinned | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| post_id | Yes | ||
| queue_rank | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'update mutable' (implying write) and the null behavior of queue_rank. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the scope of mutable fields.
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 short and front-loaded with the main action. It achieves efficiency with two clauses. However, it could be expanded without losing conciseness to cover more parameters or behaviors.
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?
With 8 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and an output schema not referenced, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, validation rules, or the full set of mutable fields, leaving the agent to infer much from the schema alone.
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 0%. The description only adds meaning for one parameter (queue_rank: null explicitly un-ranks). The other seven parameters (body, slug, tags, title, pinned, status, post_id) receive no semantic clarification 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 'Update mutable post fields', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It also adds a specific nuance about queue_rank null behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_post or delete_post, though the distinct action is evident.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_post for new posts, get_post for reading). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All tools have clearly distinct purposes. The board, post, comment, vote, analytics, changelog, queue, and utility tools each target different resources or actions without overlap.
Most tools follow verb_noun snake_case (e.g., create_board, get_post). Two tools (ping, whoami) are not verb_noun but are standard conventions, keeping overall consistency high.
22 tools is well-scoped for a feedback board management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Covers core lifecycle for boards (CRUD + publish/unpublish), posts (CRUD + claim/release + status proposal + evidence), and comments (create/list). Missing comment update/delete and vote creation, but these are minor gaps for the domain.
