bowrd_update_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation scope (title, description, content warning, tags, visibility, board) and implies a partial update rather than full replacement, but says nothing about permissions, whether changes are reversible, how omitted fields behave, or what happens on failure.

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 the action and target first and the editable fields in a compact parenthetical. No filler, no repetition of schema text.

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?

Adequate for a 7-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, but because there are no annotations the description should have covered authorization needs, partial-update semantics, and error behavior, which it omits.

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 one of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the entry_id ID/UUID duality. The description's field list merely restates those parameters and adds no format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb (update) plus resource (pin/entry), with an enumerated list of editable attributes and the qualifier 'existing', which implicitly distinguishes it from bowrd_create_entry. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so it stays short of a 5.

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?

'Update an existing pin/entry' implies the precondition that the entry must already exist and that creation is handled elsewhere, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of required permissions, and no pointer to alternatives such as bowrd_create_entry or bowrd_get_entry.

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