brand_boards_update_brand_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's only addition is the word 'Update'. It doesn't disclose that only provided fields are changed, that the board must exist, or what the response looks like. No extra behavioral context beyond annotations is given.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficient – it could include key usage hints without becoming verbose. It earns its place but doesn't leverage the space to add value.

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 an 8-parameter tool, the description is far too thin. It doesn't clarify partial vs full update, the defaulting of locationId (which is noted in the schema but not here), or any return value. Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the response. This is inadequate.

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 the schema already documents every parameter (id, name, fonts, etc.). The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable per the high coverage baseline of 3.

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 'Update a Brand Board' clearly states the action (update) and resource (Brand Board). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from create/delete/get siblings by name, but it does not specify which fields can be updated or that it's a partial update, so it's not a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for existing boards, that 'create' should be used for new ones, or that 'get' retrieves before updating. The agent must infer usage from the name and siblings.

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