Workboard Update Workstream Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits beyond the schema: an internal read-before-write existence check, the required permission level, and the valid value domains for pace, health, and priority. It omits whether the update is partial or fully replacing, and whether it is reversible, which is a meaningful 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact block of constraints. No filler sentences, though the trailing enumeration of pace/health/priority values restates the schema descriptions rather than adding new information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining essentials for a 7-parameter partial-update tool: the existence check, the permission gate, and the constrained value domains. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 100%, so every parameter is already documented including the pace/health/priority value sets. The description's enumeration of those values largely duplicates what the schema states, adding little semantic detail (e.g., no date format rationale or name constraints). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 workstream's properties"), which clearly distinguishes it from workboard_create_workstream_tool and workboard_get_workstreams_tool by implication. It is clear and unambiguous, but it never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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?

The description supplies a precondition (workstream must exist, confirmed by read-before-write) and an authorization requirement (team manager or co-manager), which imply when the tool is usable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over create_workstream or get_workstreams, and no statement about partial-update behaviour when only some properties are supplied.

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