Vibe Board VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that updating project_id moves tasks between projects, warns about subtasks not being auto-moved, and mentions a warning in the response if subtasks remain. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and updatable fields, the second provides critical behavioral context for project_id. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the core purpose and key behavioral nuance (project movement), but lacks information on response format, error conditions, or side effects. It meets minimum viability but could be more 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning project_id behavior with subtasks, but does not provide additional syntax or format details for other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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') and the resource ('a task'), specifying the fields that can be modified: status, assignment, priority, RIPER mode, project, or other fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like board_create_task (creation) and board_delete_task (deletion) by focusing on modification.

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: to update various task attributes. It explicitly mentions moving tasks between projects with project_id and warns about subtask handling. However, it does not specify when to use alternatives like board_bulk_update_tasks for multiple tasks or board_update_project for project-level changes.

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