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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the tool upserts and creates the card if the CVE is not yet on the board — which is valuable, but it says nothing about permission requirements or what happens when only a subset of fields is supplied.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint last. The inline enumeration of the status and resolution vocabularies duplicates schema content and is the one place the text could be trimmed.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the action, the field set, the upsert behavior and the user intent that should trigger it. Only permissions and partial-update semantics are left implicit, which are modest gaps.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the note that notes are appended rather than replaced. The description restates the enum values for status and resolution_status, which duplicates the schema rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Change one board card") and enumerates the mutable fields (status, resolution, notes, resolution notes). It clearly delimits scope to a single card, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling add_to_board, which its upsert clause partially overlaps with.

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 gives a concrete trigger: "Use when the user says a CVE is fixed, accepted or a false positive," which maps the user's phrasing directly onto the triage/resolution fields. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for the create-vs-update case.

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