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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (update text) and the ownership requirement, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the message doesn't exist or the user is not the creator), return values, or confirm whether the update is partial/full. This is basic transparency but lacks important behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes the key constraint without any filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and easily scannable.

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 that this is a simple two-parameter update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core operation and the ownership restriction. Missing details about error handling or success responses are minor given the tool's simplicity, so it does not feel incomplete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage: both 'message_id' and 'text' have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (updates) and resource (board message) and adds a critical scope constraint ('created by the current MCP user'), which distinguishes it from siblings like retro.board.messages.list and retro.board.messages.delete_own. It clearly states what the tool does and for whom.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to update the text of an existing board message and you are the creator. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the ownership constraint serves as effective contextual guidance. Sibling tools like delete_own handle separate operations, so the usage context is clear.

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