Rename or re-privacy a Pinterest board

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

The description significantly exceeds what annotations provide. It discloses that setting SECRET hides all pins without deletion, that it is reversible, that the read-back reports hidden pin counts, and that PROTECTED is refused by name rather than rejected after sending. This adds actionable behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), with no contradictions.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a clear warning symbol, reversibility note, and an edge-case explanation. The structure flows logically from main purpose to critical caveats, without fluff or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally thorough. It covers prerequisites (Pinterest connected), credit cost (0 credits), allowed values (PUBLIC/SECRET with PROTECTED refused), side effects (hidden pins, reversibility), and even hints at output via read-back. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With schema coverage at 75%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the intent of name, description, and privacy (rename/rewrite/change privacy). It also clarifies the privacy enum nuance — that only PUBLIC or SECRET are accepted on update and that PROTECTED is always refused — which the schema does not convey. This goes beyond simple repetition of schema 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 states a specific action ('Rename a board, rewrite its description, or change its privacy') with clear resource and attributes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_pinterest_board and delete_pinterest_board by focusing on updating an existing board. The title reinforces the purpose without redundancy.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (updating an existing board) and even provides a contextual hint: PROTECTED can only be set at creation, pointing toward create_pinterest_board for that scenario. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give a direct when-not-to-use statement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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