kanbn_validate_board_slug

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

The description discloses that the tool throws on invalid or reserved values, which is useful behavioral information. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and doesn't mention what happens on success (e.g., returns nothing, returns true, etc.) or whether it has side effects. The throwing behavior is a meaningful disclosure but not complete.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the key behavioral detail (throwing on invalid/reserved values). No wasted words.

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 validation tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify what the return value is on success, which could matter for an agent deciding how to use the result. The throwing behavior is disclosed, but the success path is left ambiguous.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('board slug'), and mentions it throws on invalid or reserved values. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like kanbn_validate_board or kanbn_reserved_board_slugs, but the focus on validating a proposed slug is clear enough.

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 implies when to use it: when you have a proposed board slug and need to check it before using it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like kanbn_reserved_board_slugs or kanbn_validate_board, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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