weeek_manage_board_columns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether actions are destructive (deleting a column could be irreversible), whether reordering has side effects on tasks in those columns, permissions needed, or what the mutation returns. For a tool with create/update/delete/move actions and no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the four actions and pointing to the read sibling. It loses a point for not being broken out or elaborating slightly, but it is appropriately minimal for a multi-action 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 4 enum actions, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It lists the actions but doesn't clarify the action-parameter matrix (which params are needed per action), nor what results/return values to expect. Given no annotations or output schema, it could do more to guide a model in assembling valid call combinations.

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 80% and each parameter has a reasonable inline description (e.g., 'upper_board_column_id: the column to sit after; null moves it first'). The description itself adds little beyond naming the four actions, which maps to the action enum. Since the schema already documents parameters well, baseline 3 applies and the description doesn't add significant extra meaning.

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 uses a specific verb set (creates, renames, deletes, reorders) tied to the resource (board column/status), clearly outlining all four actions. It distinguishes from the sibling weeek_list_board_columns by noting that tool is for reading.

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?

The description names the sibling read tool (weeek_list_board_columns) as the association for reading, providing reasonable context. However, it doesn't give explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or detail which parameters apply to which action, though the schema's per-parameter 'required' hints partially cover this.

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