Vibe Board VE

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation behavior ('update'), clearing semantics (pass null to clear), and practical use case (archiving). However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or response format.

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, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by specific usage tip and parameter nuance. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste.

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, it covers purpose, usage, and key parameter behaviors well. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or response details, but it's largely complete for basic 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying clearing behavior for description/metadata ('Pass null to clear them'), which complements but doesn't repeat schema details, elevating the score.

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 ('update') and resource ('project') with specific attributes (status, name, description, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like board_create_project (creation) and board_update_task (different resource).

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use ('archive completed projects so they don't clutter the active list'), but doesn't specify when NOT to use or mention alternatives among siblings like board_bulk_update_tasks for multiple updates.

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