update_look_board_button

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it never says whether unspecified properties are preserved (partial update) or reset, whether the button must already exist on a board, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the parenthetical property list is largely redundant with the schema.

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?

A simple single-record update whose parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the definition is minimally adequate. The missing piece is the partial-versus-full update semantics and the lack of any routing against the position-specific and bulk siblings, which matters given the dense sibling set.

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 including units (pixels) and the required buttonId is already documented in the schema. The description's parenthetical list of properties adds only naming-level overlap, no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (update) and resource (look board button) and enumerates the editable properties, so the agent knows exactly what it mutates. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like update_look_board_button_positions or bulk_update_look_board_buttons, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from names 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the single-button scope versus the bulk and position-specific siblings, and no prerequisites. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool when only positions change or when multiple buttons are involved.

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