Yougile Columns

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

The description explicitly labels operations as [read] or [admin], providing auth-related behavioral context not present in the annotations. The phrase 'update/rename/soft-delete' hints at mutating behavior. However, with only openWorldHint as annotation, the description still does not explain side effects, soft-delete semantics, confirmation flow, or return behavior, so it only partially carries the transparency burden.

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: the first line summarizes the tool, followed by a tight operation table and a help pointer. The Russian translations somewhat repeat the operation names, and the opening line overlaps with the operation list, but there is no wasteful or excessive text.

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 multi-operation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, this description gives operations, access levels, and a pointer to parameter details. It is minimally viable because an agent can follow the 'call yougile_help' instruction to get the missing information. However, it lacks per-operation parameter semantics, return value expectations, and behavioral side effects, leaving real gaps.

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 input schema already documents operation and confirm. The description adds one concrete parameter clue: 'list (by boardId)', and hints that update may involve rename/soft-delete fields. Yet most parameter details are deferred to yougile_help, so the description adds only modest meaning beyond the schema, which has 67% coverage.

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 names the resource ('Board columns') and lists concrete operations: list, get, create, update, with the list operation scoped by boardId. This distinguishes it from sibling resources like boards and tasks. However, 'soft-delete' is mentioned in the opening line but is not present as a selectable operation in the schema or operation list, which introduces minor ambiguity.

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 operation list with [read] and [admin] access labels gives basic guidance on which operations are available and at what permission level. It also tells the agent to call yougile_help('columns.<operation>') for parameters. But it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routes.

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