Manage Object Schema Board Connection

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

Annotations are minimal (all hints false), so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it adds little beyond the schema's action descriptions. It doesn't state authorization requirements, side effects, or what happens to existing data on detach. The description is largely redundant with the parameter schema.

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 description is concise with two sentences covering both actions. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured. Every sentence earns its place, but the information is densely packed.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with conditional requirements and no output schema. The description covers the two actions adequately but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or expected behavior after operations. Given the complexity, it is incomplete but minimally viable.

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%, and the description repeats the same explanations as the schema properties. It provides no additional meaning beyond what the input schema already offers. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description doesn't add value.

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: connecting or detaching a board from an account-level object schema. It uses specific verbs and resources ('connect' and 'detach' with 'board' and 'object schema') and distinguishes between the two operations. Among sibling tools, this is unique and not easily confused with others like 'manage_object_schema_columns'.

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 explains each action's effect but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't clarify prerequisites or contrasts with similar tools like 'manage_object_schema_columns'. The information is present but implicit, lacking explicit usage direction.

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