update_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but doesn't disclose whether it requires special permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens if the board doesn't exist, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It clearly identifies the action and the target without any extraneous words.

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 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the core action but lacks details on success/error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., board existence), or any side effects. While the schema covers required fields, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description could offer more context, but it's minimally adequate for a straightforward update.

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 100% for all 4 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds only that 'title' and 'description' are the updatable fields, which is a marginal clarification. It doesn't add syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a resource ('a board'), and the specific attributes ('title or description'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_space, update_column, and update_lane by explicitly naming the resource type.

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 implies usage for updating boards, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, or any prerequisites/conditions. It is obvious from the resource name that it's for boards, but there's no mention of when not to use it (e.g., when to use create_board instead) or any side conditions.

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