board_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses authorization requirements (lease holder, human acceptance, standing grants), side effects (attaching a note, posting a 'status' when blocked), failure conditions (revoked/expired grants), and a prompt-injection security model treating board text as untrusted data.

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?

Front-loaded with the lifecycle transition, then constraints, then security. Every section is relevant, but the final security block is dense and run-on, and some authority nuances are repeated across sentences rather than stated once crisply.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the safety and authorization context an agent needs, plus side-effect disclosure. It leaves gaps on return values and on session_id semantics, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'status' values and the 'note' parameter, and 'task_id' is implied by 'move a task', but 'session_id' is never mentioned or explained, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (move) plus the exact resource and its full state machine: proposed -> accepted -> working -> blocked -> done | declined. This level of scope detail lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like board_claim_task or board_release_task without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditions for operation: only the lease holder can mark done, working/blocked renew the lease, proposed tasks need human acceptance or a matching standing grant, and revoked/expired grants block work. It does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., board_claim_task) for the cases it excludes, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative routing.

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