Update board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by stating that unpassed fields are left untouched and that the boards:write scope is required, which tells the agent this is a safe, partial, non-destructive mutation.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: capability, mutation semantics, then scope. Every clause carries information and there is no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and a simple 5-parameter update, the description covers the essentials: which fields mutate, partial-update behavior, and the required OAuth scope. Minor gaps remain around the privacy options and error/edge behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 only 40% (only board_id and ad_account_id are documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the three updatable fields, but it adds nothing about the privacy enum semantics or the ad_account_id 'shared asset' requirement, which the schema only briefly covers.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Update a board') and enumerates the exact mutable fields (name, description, privacy), so an agent knows precisely what the tool changes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like pinterest_create_board or pinterest_update_board_section, which keeps it just 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?

'Only the fields you pass are changed' clarifies partial-update semantics and the 'boards:write' scope states a prerequisite, which is real usage context. However, it never says when to choose this tool over pinterest_update_board_section or pinterest_create_board, so usage is only implied.

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