Update stage

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

The description simply states the action and adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose permission requirements, effects on other board data, or error behavior. Annotations already indicate it is a non-destructive write operation, but the description adds no value here.

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 one short sentence, highly concise with no wasted words. While it is extremely minimal, the length is appropriate for a simple rename operation, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description, schema, and annotations together provide adequate context. However, the description alone is thin, omitting any mention of identifier alternatives or potential side effects. The complete schema mitigates this, but the description could be more helpful.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including the alternative board_slug identifier. The description 'Rename a board stage' adds no information 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 'Rename a board stage' uses a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('board stage'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_board, delete_board_stage, or reorder_board_stages. It aligns well with the tool name and title, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, alternative tools, or exclusions. The only context is the verb itself, which implies usage, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is given.

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