update_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'updates' but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether changes are reversible, if special permissions are required, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with many optional parameters.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, but it is arguably too generic, missing useful contextual details that would make it more informative.

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?

This is a complex tool with 23 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full update), return behavior, or edge cases. The schema provides parameter details, but the description does not adequately support an agent in understanding the overall behavior and appropriate use.

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 all 23 parameters in detail. The description adds no additional meaning beyond saying 'new properties,' which is vague. The baseline of 3 applies because 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 clearly states the action ('Update an existing board') and the resource ('board'), and indicates the scope ('modify board details, preferences, or settings'). It does not explicitly distinguish from specialized sibling tools like close_board or reopen_board, but the general-purpose nature is evident.

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 implies when to use the tool ('to modify board details, preferences, or settings') but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to prefer. For example, it doesn't mention that closing/reopening can be done via close_board/reopen_board, though update_board also supports the 'closed' parameter.

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