update_board

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description only adds the permission requirement. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible. The description adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 two sentences: the first enumerates the actions, the second states the permission requirement. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose and permission adequately. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. It does not mention the required board_id parameter explicitly, but the schema handles that. For a straightforward update tool, this is largely 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 parameters. The description summarizes the actions (rename, describe, hide, favourite) which map to the parameters, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 actions (rename, describe, hide, favourite) and the resource (board). It lists specific operations, distinguishing it from other board-related tools like create_board or delete_list. The mention of 'container' in parentheses adds clarity.

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 a clear precondition: 'Requires managing that board - instance admin, or one of its managers.' This tells the agent who can use the tool. While it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, the context is sufficient since no other tool directly updates board attributes.

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