Vibe Board VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the all-or-nothing validation ('if any task is missing, NO tasks are updated') and side effects ('Activity log entries are written per task'). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers key transactional behavior.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage examples, third discloses critical behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and key information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the all-or-nothing validation and activity logging. It could be more complete by mentioning response format or error cases, but covers essential behavioral context given the complexity.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mentioning 'project_id' for moving tasks and 'status/priority/agent' for bulk changes, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 verb ('Apply the same update') and resource ('multiple tasks'), specifying it's for bulk operations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like board_update_task (single task) by emphasizing 'multiple tasks in one call' and 'bulk status/priority/agent changes'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for consolidation (move N tasks to a different project) or bulk status/priority/agent changes.' It implies usage for batch operations but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like board_update_task for single updates.

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