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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs potentially destructive actions (delete) and mutations (rename, reorder) but doesn't explain consequences of deletion (e.g., are tasks/tags lost?), whether reorder has any impact on linked items, or what happens to children when a board is deleted. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more transparency is needed.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the full purpose and the second points to the read sibling. Every element earns its place, making this an efficient, front-loaded description.

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 multi-action tool (create, update, delete, move) with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain per-action requirements or behaviors—e.g., what happens when you delete a board, whether update requires specific fields, or the semantics of reordering. The schema compensates partly (80% param coverage), but the description could add action-specific context that an agent would need.

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%, meaning most parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds minimal parameter detail. However, the schema mentions the 'move' action's upper_board_id semantics are self-documenting. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters, earning a baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 verb (create, rename, delete, reorder) and resource (board). It distinguishes from the sibling read tool weeek_list_boards by explicitly pointing to it for reading, which differentiates this mutating tool from its counterpart. However, it doesn't enumerate the reorder specifics in the purpose line itself.

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 says 'Use weeek_list_boards to read them,' establishing a clear when-not-to-use boundary. It implies this is for mutations only. While it doesn't cover edge cases like when to prefer update vs delete, the sibling reference provides good context for an agent deciding between read and write tools.

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