yougile_update_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specificity by mentioning 'soft-delete', which aligns with the destructive hint. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects of title updates, and the 'stickers' reference is a potential source of confusion beyond what the schema supports.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded with the action verb. However, the inclusion of 'stickers' is an unnecessary and inaccurate element that detracts from the sentence's value, making it less effective than a purely accurate short description.

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 update tool with three params and no output schema, the description is not sufficiently complete. It omits return value expectations, permissions, and any side effects other than soft-delete. The 'stickers' inconsistency is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect usage, and the tool relies heavily on schemas and annotations for context.

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 100% with clear descriptions for id, title, and deleted. The description repeats 'title' and 'soft-delete' but introduces 'stickers', which has no corresponding parameter in the schema. This can mislead the agent into expecting a stickers field, actively harming parameter understanding.

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 updates a board and lists specific update types (title, stickers, soft-delete). This distinguishes it from board creation, retrieval, and other update tools. However, the mention of 'stickers' is not reflected in the input schema, introducing ambiguity about the tool's actual capabilities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yougile_create_board or yougile_update_column. It lacks any context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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