Update board

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: 'Changing columns reorders/renames them' and 'Returns the updated board,' which are not visible from annotations. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, with every sentence adding behavioral or usage information. No filler or repetition.

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 low-complexity update tool, the description covers scope, partial-update semantics, column behavior, and return value. The schema and annotations round out the picture; no output schema exists, but the return value is explicitly stated. It omits permissions or alternatives, but those are not essential for basic usage.

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?

Although the schema already covers all parameters, the description adds partial-update semantics ('Pass only fields you want to change') and clarifies the effect of the columns parameter on ordering/renaming. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update a board's name or column list'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_board and update_board_stage. It explicitly names the mutable fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 instruction 'Pass only the fields you want to change' gives clear usage context for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., using update_board_stage for stage changes), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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