Set Board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (this becomes the default board for subsequent card operations), which is useful mutating-state context. However, it says nothing about whether the selection persists across sessions, whether it requires permissions, or whether switching has any side effects.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary action front-loaded; nothing is padded. Slight redundancy between the first and second sentences ('active board' / 'default board'), but overall efficient.

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 single-parameter state-setting tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential effect. It is largely complete, missing only persistence and permission context that would push it higher.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'board' parameter. The description's note that the board 'can be specified by ID or name' restates and mildly reinforces the schema, but adds no new format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Select a board as the active board.' An agent can distinguish this from get_current_board or list_boards by the 'sets as active' framing, though it never explicitly names those siblings. Clear and unambiguous, just short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 sentence 'This sets the default board for card operations' gives implied context for when this tool matters, but it offers no explicit when-to-use trigger, no when-not guidance, and never points to alternatives like get_current_board. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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