Yougile Use Board

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds context that 'Nothing changes in YouGile' and explains the side-effect on task tools, which goes beyond annotations. It clarifies the tool stores a preference locally rather than modifying the actual board data. 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?

Two sentences, both essential, with the primary purpose front-loaded. No redundant phrasing or filler. The description is compact and immediately informative.

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 simple preference-storing tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: when to call, what it does, and that it doesn't alter YouGile. It could mention persistence details (e.g., per user) but that's not necessary for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already explains board name format and the 'Project / Board' pattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 states the tool's purpose: to remember the user's usual board. It names the specific resource (board) and the action (remember). It distinguishes from siblings like yougile_boards by explaining that this tool stores a preference rather than querying boards.

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 explicitly says when to call it: 'when the user says which board they work on or asks to remember it.' It also explains the effect on other tools ('task tools use it whenever they get neither a board nor a project'). This gives clear triggers, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, which is minor given the clarity.

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