Update boards

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose some behavioral traits like soft-delete, but lacks other important details such as idempotency, permissions, effect on unspecified fields, or error responses. The burden is partially met but not fully.

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 sentence with a parenthetical list, very concise and front-loaded. No wasted words; every element contributes meaning.

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?

Given the low schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description is somewhat complete for a simple update tool. It covers the main operations but lacks details on parameter constraints, optional vs required behavior, and return values. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

The schema coverage is only 20%, but the description maps each action to a parameter (rename->title, move->projectId, toggle stickers->stickers, soft-delete->deleted), adding meaning beyond the schema. Only the 'id' parameter is described in the schema, so the description compensates well for the other four.

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 the resource 'a board', and lists specific actions (rename, move, toggle stickers, soft-delete). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like yougile_boards_create, get, and list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use create or get instead). No explicit context or exclusions are mentioned.

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