board_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious behavior — the board is lazily created from defaults [open, in-progress, done] on first edit — which is genuinely valuable. However, for a tool with destructive operations (`remove`, and `reorder` which rewrites the whole column set) it says nothing about what happens to existing statuses or tasks in a removed column, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact action-to-parameter digest. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding or restated boilerplate.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the surface API well but omits the consequences of editing: effect on tasks occupying a removed column, behavior on invalid or partial `order` permutations, and any return/confirmation semantics. Adequate but with real gaps an agent could trip over.

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 every parameter, including the per-action requirements for key/label/order. The description's `action add (key,label?) / remove (key) ...` recaps the schema rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource: customizing an initiative's board columns, and enumerates the four supported actions. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `board` (presumably the read side of the same resource), so an agent must guess at the boundary.

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?

It states the context in which the tool applies (customizing board columns) and maps each action to its required arguments, which effectively tells the agent how to invoke each mode. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to use `board` instead of `board_status`), so it falls short of a 5.

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