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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two critical behaviors: operations are applied in order with all-or-nothing semantics (atomicity), and 'replace' requires 'find' to occur exactly once (a key failure mode). It omits failure/response behavior and any size or count limits.

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?

One framing sentence followed by a scannable bullet list of ops, with the most consequential constraint (in-order, all-or-nothing) front-loaded. No filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly: op types, ordering, atomicity, and the uniqueness precondition on 'find'. It could go further on error behavior and the 200-op/256k-character limits, but nothing required is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for the array parameter, and it does: it explains each op's semantics beyond the bare 'const' values (write replaces everything, append adds, replace needs a unique match). The 'board' parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description reasonably doesn't repeat it.

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 ('Change part of an HTML or Markdown board') plus a distinguishing benefit ('without resending all of it') that implicitly separates it from write_board. It never names write_board or read_board explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'without resending all of it' framing hints that this is preferred over a full rewrite, and the op list shows which operation to pick for a given edit intent. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative tool for whole-board replacement.

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