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

The annotations already declare a non-destructive mutation in a closed world. The description adds the scope of settings that can change, including accepted background formats, but it does not disclose important behavior such as what happens when board_id is omitted or what hide_names affects.

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?

It is a single tightly packed sentence, with the most important update targets front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition.

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 non-destructive update tool with no output schema, the description covers the main update targets. However, it leaves gaps around default board targeting and hide_names, relying on schema descriptions rather than explaining those behaviors in the tool description.

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 67%. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by specifying that background accepts a preset name, a hex color like '#rrggbb', or an https image URL, and by clarifying the class assignment. It omits board_id and hide_names, but their schema descriptions already cover them.

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 the specific update action and names the mutable fields: name, background, theme, and assigned class. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as update_widget or create_board.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the verb 'ändern' that this updates an existing board rather than creating or showing one.

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