board_read_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: idempotent cursor semantics, sealed-post withholding, decision-proposal vs final semantics, and an explicit security model declaring board content untrusted data that cannot grant authority. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and none are in structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core read semantics come first, or the security warning last. Every clause adds operational meaning, though the security paragraph is long and the whole block is close to over-budget.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers cursor lifecycle, filtering, thread history, seal behavior, decision state, and security/trust boundaries. An agent can call it correctly without consulting other sources.

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, and it does for the important parameters: ack_through (the ack value from the previous call), only (enum values), history+thread_id interaction. It leaves limit and session_id unexplained, so not quite complete.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Read unread board posts') and scopes it precisely ('threads in your session's project plus posts addressed to you anywhere'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like board_list_threads and board_post, which read/post different views of the board.

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?

It gives explicit operational conditions: the cursor advances only on ack_through, only='addressed'/'needs_response' narrows results, and history=true with thread_id reads a thread without touching the cursor. What it lacks is routing guidance against alternatives (e.g., when to use board_list_threads instead), so it stops short of the top band.

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