update_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Update' implies mutation, but there is no mention of permissions, reversibility, side effects on fields not specified, or whether partial updates are supported. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

At only three words, the description is overly terse and under-specified. While brevity is valued, it fails to convey essential information about the tool's capabilities or usage, resulting in a lack of structure and context.

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 the tool's seven parameters, many sibling tools, and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or specific behaviors, leaving the agent with minimal actionable information.

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?

The input schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions, so the structured data already provides substantial meaning. The description adds no additional clarification beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Update a board' clearly states the verb (Update) and resource (board), distinguishing it from siblings like create_board, delete_board, and get_board. However, it lacks specificity about which attributes of the board can be updated, making it only moderately clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple siblings related to boards (e.g., clone_board, list_boards, search_boards), the absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction for selection.

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