update_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing beyond the title. It does not state whether this is a partial or full replacement update, what happens to omitted fields, whether permissions or ownership are required, or that boardId is mandatory. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a serious gap.

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 single sentence contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded substance for an agent to act on. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficiency.

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?

With 5 parameters, a nested free-form object, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain update semantics and the shape of 'parameters'. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to call the tool correctly without guessing.

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 0% across 5 parameters, including an open-ended nested 'parameters' object and an enum for 'type'. The description adds no meaning to any of them — not the UUID format of boardId, not allowed values, not the structure expected in the nested object.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Umami board'), which is enough to know it mutates an existing board. It does not specify which board attributes can be changed, nor does it distinguish it from related siblings like clone_board or create_board beyond the verb. Purpose is identifiable but skeletal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of create_board, clone_board, or get_board, and no prerequisites are mentioned. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for modifying an existing board identified by boardId.

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