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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. Beyond that, the description usefully discloses the concrete side effects: it sets the phase icon, traffic light and timer, and reveals the phase’s widgets. It does not cover edge cases such as behavior at the last phase, but the added effect detail is substantial.

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 compact sentence with the default action front-loaded before the optional phase override. Every clause contributes information about action, parameter, or side effects.

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 simple mutation tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description covers the action, the optional phase selection, and the visual side effects. Missing edge-case behavior at the final phase is a minor gap, but the core calling context is complete.

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 50%, with board_id described in the schema and phase left undocumented there. The description compensates by clarifying that phase is a phase number starting at 1 for selecting a specific phase, while the board_id fallback is already handled by 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 a precise verb and resource: switching to the next phase inside the „Ablauf“ widget, optionally to a specific phase. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic widget tools like update_widget or widget_action, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 explains the default behavior (next phase) and the alternative (phase = a specific number starting at 1), which implies when to use each. However, it gives no prerequisites such as needing an existing „Ablauf“ widget or board context, and no exclusions or named alternatives.

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