Set Active Board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does reveal that the change persists and affects subsequent operations, which is useful context. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether the board ID is validated, error conditions, or if it overwrites a previously active board.

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 a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant information and is highly concise.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description is sparse. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., whether a workspace must be set), error behavior, and the exact scope of 'future operations'. For a state-changing tool with no annotations, more context is necessary.

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% since boardId is described as 'ID of the board to set as active'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool sets the active board for future operations, using the specific verb 'set' and resource 'active board'. It distinguishes from sibling set_active_workspace by specifying the board context.

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 phrase 'for future operations' implies the tool should be invoked before board-specific calls that need an active board, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_active_workspace, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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