fenbs_flag_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses visibility semantics per mode, the required permission for 'business', and that it is refused on a personal board. It does not state what happens to an already-set flag or what the call returns, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loads the action, but the sentence structure is tangled by nested quotes and a run-on that mixes mode semantics, permissions, and purpose. The final clause ('the note, plan and comments still say why') is useful but buried.

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?

Covers permission and visibility behavior well enough for a 3-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, but omits the 'ref' format, default behavior for 'on', and any confirmation of what happens on success or failure.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates for the enum by explaining 'mine' vs 'business' in depth. However it adds nothing about 'ref' (format of the task reference) and only implicitly covers 'on' via 'take a flag off', leaving gaps.

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: 'Flag a task, or take a flag off.' No sibling tool performs flagging, so it is distinguishable. The awkward quoting around 'mine'/'business' slightly muddies the opening, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Explains when to use each mode: 'mine' for a private flag visible only to the acting user, 'business' for a team-visible flag requiring the 'Flag for everyone' permission and refused on personal boards. Gives the intended purpose ('look at this') but does not name alternative tools for capturing rationale.

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