board_config

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds one genuinely valuable trait beyond annotations: reorder is semantically inert for completion. It says nothing about remove being destructive, what permissions are required, or how expected_revision guards concurrent mutations, which matters for a multi-variant mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with two clauses, each of which carries distinct information (scope, then the reorder caveat). Nothing is wasted and the most surprising constraint is placed after the scope statement where it reads naturally.

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 the missing pieces are not in the description but in the structured side: an output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the schema enumerates all five actions with required fields plus the request_id replay contract and expected_revision. Because the structured fields cover what the prose omits, the description does the job it must do.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces only two of the five action variants implicitly ('reordering columns', 'terminal flags') and does not explain add/remove/relabel or the expected_revision concurrency contract. It neither compensates for nor undercuts the schema.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Manage board columns and explicit terminal flags.' The resource (board columns/terminal flags) is specific and distinct from every listed sibling, which are all task/link/cloud oriented. It stops short of naming the concrete operations (add/remove/relabel/reorder/set_terminal) that the schema defines, so the agent still needs the schema to learn what 'manage' covers.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the 34 siblings. The clause 'reordering columns does not change completion semantics' gives a conditional cue about what this tool does and does not affect, which is a useful implied usage hint but not routing guidance.

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