Update a board item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates this is a mutation tool ('update'), but doesn't disclose what happens to fields not provided (left unchanged? cleared?), whether a note is required for certain status changes, or any permission/auth requirements. Annotations being empty makes a 3 reasonable – not misleading but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a usage hint. Efficient and no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured with param details, but good for its compactness.

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 4 parameters (1 required, 1 enum), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basics but lacks depth. Missing: behavior for partial updates, required note for certain statuses, and return value description. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It does mention the three updatable fields (status, owner, note) and groups them, giving some semantics. But it doesn't explain each parameter's meaning, constraints, or interplay (e.g., can you update status without note?). With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, more param-level context would improve agent usage.

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's purpose: updating a board item's status, owner, or attaching a progress note. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'board_post' (which presumably creates) and 'board_list' (which reads). However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling for differentiation, so it's not a full 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?

The description provides a clear usage hint in the second sentence: 'Keep your own items current here so the other agent is not guessing.' This implies when to use it (for tasks you're working on) but doesn't give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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