Update board settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it declares patch/partial-update semantics and, critically, that null explicitly clears description and color — a destructive nuance the schema's anyOf only implies. It does not mention permissions, whether a rename affects references elsewhere, or failure modes for a non-existent board, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and then one clause per field, so it scans well. The 14-item palette list is useful but partly duplicates the enum already present in the color schema branch, adding length without new 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 nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers every updatable field, clearing semantics, and the archive alternative. It stops short of stating what the call returns or how it errors, which matters somewhat for a write tool.

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 0%, yet the description defines every patch field's meaning and side effect (renames, home-picker blurb, accent on card/header, favourites to top) plus null-clearing behavior and the accepted palette vocabulary. Only `id` is left implicit, which is a trivial gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Patch a board') and immediately enumerates the exact fields being changed and what each one does. It also distinguishes itself from kanbini_archive_board, so an agent can separate it from the closest sibling without opening a schema.

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?

'Omit fields you do not want to change' states the partial-update contract clearly, and 'To archive a board use kanbini_archive_board' routes the agent away from the most likely mistaken alternative. It does not cover prerequisites or when this is preferable to reading get_board first, so not a full 5.

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