update_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation and safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that structure is not modified by this tool, which prevents misuse. It does not go into side effects or return behavior, but for a simple board metadata update this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary function is stated first, and the sibling-tool routing follows immediately. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 metadata update tool, the description plus annotations are mostly sufficient. However, the required ID parameters are not explained and the wording 'Rename a board or change its description' introduces slight ambiguity about whether both fields can be updated in a single call. Given no output schema and no parameter guidance, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It explains the purpose of 'name' and 'description' implicitly, but it does not clarify that projectId and boardId are required identifiers used to locate the target board. This leaves two of four parameters, including both required ones, essentially undocumented in the description.

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 uses specific verbs 'Rename' and 'change its description' to define exactly what the tool does to the board resource. It also explicitly distinguishes structure-related changes (columns) as the domain of update_column / delete_column / reorder_columns, making it easy to tell apart from siblings.

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 explicitly states that column structure is changed with other named tools, which gives clear when-not-to-use guidance. This effectively routes an agent to the correct sibling tool when the user intent is about columns rather than board name or description.

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