update_board

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that 'board accepts board _id or exact board name' but does not elaborate on side effects, permission requirements, or response details beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first states the purpose and updatable fields; the second clarifies the board parameter. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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?

With complete schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers core functionality but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or behavior for non-existent boards (openWorldHint=false implies but doesn't explain closed set). Adequate but not thorough.

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 the schema documents all four parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that 'board' can be an ID or exact name, but repeats the updatable fields. Overall minimal additional semantic context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb (Update), the resource (Huly board), and the specific attributes that can be updated (name, description, or privacy). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_board, archive_board, and get_board.

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 implies usage for updating boards but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_board for new boards, other update tools). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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