yougile_update_board

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a write operation. The description adds 'soft-delete' which aligns with the destructive hint, but it also introduces 'stickers' that is not in the schema, creating ambiguity. It doesn't explain consequences or revertibility beyond the annotation.

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 very short and concise, fitting in a single sentence. However, the inclusion of 'stickers' is extraneous and not supported by the schema, which detracts from quality. It is not under-specified to the point of being useless, but the unnecessary word reduces effectiveness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the effects of setting 'deleted' to true, whether 'title' is optional, or what the response looks like. The inaccurate 'stickers' reference further reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds misleading information about 'stickers' that isn't a parameter. It doesn't clarify the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, and the extra mention could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 tool updates a board, with a specific verb and resource. However, it mentions 'stickers' which is not present in the input schema, causing minor confusion. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling update tools, but the resource is specific enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical use cases. The description simply states what it does, not when or why to choose it.

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