Rename board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the rename propagates to the parent-board card, breadcrumb and search, IDs and links are preserved, and Home is excluded.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences: the action first, then propagation effects, then what stays stable, then the Home exclusion. Nothing is redundant with the title or 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description covers effect scope, invariants and the main restriction. Only an explicit note on return/confirmation behavior is absent, which is minor with no output schema needed.

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 coverage is 100%, with both title and board_id documented (including that board_id may come from list_boards or a board URL). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Change a board's title' / 'Renames the board') and elaborates the exact scope of the change. No sibling tool performs renaming, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from create_board, duplicate_board, etc.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by the name and purpose, and the 'Your Home cannot be renamed' line supplies one important exclusion. However, it never explicitly states when to rename versus, say, move_card or create a new board, so guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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