Update Board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the mutation intent and the fields; it does not mention whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens when 'closed' is set to true, whether background changes require special permissions, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the affected fields. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, repetition, or buried context.

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 5-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. The schema covers all parameters, so the agent can construct a valid call, but the description does not clarify update semantics, effects on existing values, or response behavior, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema. It essentially restates the parameter names ('name', 'description', 'closed', 'background') without offering syntax details, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('a board') and enumerates exactly which attributes are affected: name, description, closed status, or background color. This clearly distinguishes it from create_board, delete_board, and other update_* tools.

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 this tool: whenever a board's core settings need changing. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose (e.g., update_card, update_list, update_organization), leaving that to the agent's inference.

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