copy_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies the source board is untouched, but says nothing about whether the copy is deep (all items/widgets duplicated), whether new IDs are generated, what permissions are required on the source or target team, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 well-formed sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the operation. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it verges on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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 copy operation the agent most needs to know what gets duplicated and whether the original is affected; neither is stated. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but with 0% schema coverage and no annotations the description leaves too much unknown.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It partially does: 'renaming' maps to name and 'moving it to a team' maps to team_id, and the source is implicitly board_id. The description parameter is entirely undocumented, and none of the params are explained in terms of constraints or defaults.

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?

Clear verb+resource pair: 'Copy an existing board', with the additional scope that the copy can be renamed or relocated. It reads distinctly from create_board (new board) and update_board (modify in place), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No indication of when to choose copy_board over create_board or get_board + manual reconstruction, and no prerequisites or context about permissions. The word 'optionally' hints at default behavior but nothing tells the agent when copying is the right move.

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