Update Board

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that this only modifies board metadata and does not affect cards or columns, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. The unsupported 'other properties' claim slightly clouds the scope but does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff; the core action is front-loaded and the clarifying scope statement is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 3-param tool with annotations, the description covers the basic action and scope. However, the misleading 'other properties' leaves ambiguity about what can be updated, and the description does not mention any return value or side effects, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description actively misleads by suggesting 'other properties' are updatable when additionalProperties=false and only name is a mutable field. It does not add accurate meaning and instead undermines the schema's clarity.

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 identifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('existing board'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it does not affect cards or columns. However, the phrase 'or other properties' is vague and not reflected in the schema, preventing a perfect score.

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 the tool is for an existing board but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The note about not affecting cards or columns hints at scope but does not name sibling tools or state when to choose this over create/delete or update tools for other entities.

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