weeek_manage_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that delete is destructive/irreversible, what happens to a board's columns or tasks on deletion, permission requirements, or reorder side effects — significant gaps for a mutating tool. It only names the operations.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the operation set front-loaded and the read alternative trailing. 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?

The schema is relatively rich (per-action required params at 80% coverage), which offsets some of the burden. But with no annotations and no output schema for a mutation tool, the absence of any destructive-effect or permission disclosure leaves the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents name, board_id, project_id, and upper_board_id per action. The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs (create, rename, delete, reorder) against a specific resource (board), and explicitly names the sibling weeek_list_boards as the read counterpart. Minor terminology drift ("rename"/"reorder" vs the enum values "update"/"move") slightly blurs the exact action set, keeping it 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?

Provides an explicit alternative for reading ("Use weeek_list_boards to read them"), so the agent knows which tool handles reads versus mutations. It does not, however, state when to prefer each action or any prerequisites/exclusions for the mutating paths.

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