update_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that the board owner is immutable via API, but it is silent on whether omitting columns preserves or replaces them, and on whether column replacement discards existing configuration.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the mutable fields, with the owner constraint appended. No filler, though the parenthetical '(with status mapping)' is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 non-destructive mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the main gap is parameter-level: three array-of-object parameters with overlapping semantics are named but never differentiated. The description is adequate but not sufficient for an agent to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 29% across 7 parameters, the description must carry more weight. It does explain name, the backlog/sprints toggles, and columns 'with status mapping', but leaves the confusingly similar columns / backlogColumns / nonParametrizedColumns distinction entirely unexplained, which is where an agent would most likely err.

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 gives a specific verb (Update) and resource (a board) and enumerates the mutable surface: name, backlog/sprints toggles, and columns with status mapping. It distinguishes update_board from create_board/delete_board, but it does not clarify its boundary against the sibling update_board_column, which appears to overlap with the 'columns' it claims to handle.

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?

Usage is only implied ('update a board when you want to change its settings'); there is no explicit when-to-use, and no routing guidance versus update_board_column or update_sprint. The one exclusion offered ('Board owner cannot be changed via API') is a useful constraint but is a limitation, not a selection rule.

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