update_board_config

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key mutation semantics: only supplied fields change (PARTIAL), a bound can be cleared by passing null, and the call returns the full updated board. It omits permission/auth requirements, error behavior, and rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5 for an unannotated write tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the partial-update contract, then use cases, then the return value — every sentence carries information. Sentence structure is dense and heavily parenthesized, which costs a little readability but not enough to be wasteful.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers partial-update behavior, null-clearing, identifier provenance, and the return shape ('full updated board'). What remains absent is authorization/permission disclosure and failure behavior, which is the only real gap given 6 parameters and full schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so maxScore/minScore/retentionPolicy/retentionN are already fully documented by the schema, including 'Pass null to clear it'. The description's parameter content (maxScore as anti-cheat cap, minScore as floor, null-clears) largely restates the schema rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (update a board's scoring config) and pins the timing distinction 'AFTER creation', which separates it from create_board. It also names where the required identifiers come from (gameId from list_games, boardId from list_boards), so the agent can identify and call it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (cap scores for anti-cheat via maxScore, set a floor via minScore, change retention) and notes the partial-update contract. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus update_game_config, but the 'board scoring config AFTER creation' framing implies the boundary clearly enough.

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