update_look_board

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 and largely fails it. It does not say whether this is a partial or full replace, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether it requires ownership/permissions, or what happens on an unknown lookBoardId.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the update semantics (partial vs. full), required permissions, and failure behavior. The schema covers field names but not the operational contract an agent needs to call this safely.

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 100%, so every parameter (name, gridSize, canvasWidth/Height, description, defaultFadeTime, lookBoardId) is already documented with units where relevant. The phrase 'metadata and settings' adds only light categorization beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing look board') and names the affected domain ('metadata and settings'), so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like bulk_update_look_boards, update_look_partial, or update_look_board_button, which an agent must sort out from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus bulk_update_look_boards (multiple boards), update_look_partial (partial semantics), or update_look_board_button. No prerequisites or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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