Yougile Boards

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden for safety/behavior. It discloses access levels and mentions 'soft-delete' in the header, which hints at destructiveness, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or confirmation flow, and the header's rename/move/soft-delete are not reflected in the operation enum. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the operation list, and the bullet format is scannable. It includes some redundancy (Russian translations and the header's update/rename/move/soft-delete vs the 'update' operation line) that slightly muddies the structure, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and a generic params object, the description gives the operation surface and access rules but omits return format, error behavior, and explicit parameter details (delegated to yougile_help). It is adequate as a high-level map but not self-sufficient for correct invocation without the help tool.

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 documents operation/params/confirm generically, with 67% coverage. The description adds one concrete parameter hint ('list (by projectId)') and directs the agent to yougile_help for per-operation parameters, but it does not otherwise describe create/update fields, so the agent still depends on an external help call.

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 names the resource (boards) and the operations (list, get, create, update) plus the scoping hint 'list (by projectId)'. It is clear that this tool manages Yougile boards, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like yougile_columns or yougile_projects.

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?

It gives access levels per operation ([read] vs [admin]) and tells the agent to call yougile_help for parameters, which is some guidance. However, it does not state when to choose boards over related siblings or explicitly list exclusions/alternatives.

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