Update Entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a risky mutation. The description adds that visibility can be changed and entries moved across boards (both consequential), but it never says whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, nor what the response looks like — a meaningful gap for a destructive 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 a compact parenthetical field list; nothing is padded. It is dense but readable and appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and a fully described schema, the definition supplies enough to call the tool correctly. The only residual gaps are patch-vs-replace semantics and return value, which the absence of an output schema makes minor.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description merely restates the same field list (title, description, content warning, tags, visibility, board). Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantics and the description adds no format or partial-update detail.

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 specific verb (Update) and resource (pin/entry) and enumerates the mutable fields, which cleanly separates it from bowrd_create_entry and bowrd_get_entry. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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; 'existing' only weakly implies that an entry_id must already exist. Nothing tells the agent to prefer bowrd_create_entry for new pins or how this differs from a read via bowrd_get_entry.

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