set_title_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a mutation tool. It does not state whether the board must be open, whether changes persist only after save_board, whether updates are reversible, or the effect of unknown field names. Only the field-value format is conveyed.

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 core action in the first sentence, followed by a compact, example-driven parameter note. No filler, and every part earns its place, though the args block could be slightly tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the parameter semantics are covered. But for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, missing prerequisites (open board, persistence via save_board) leave a meaningful gap.

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 0% and the schema only declares an opaque object with string values. The description compensates well by explaining the map-of-name-to-value shape, giving a concrete example across multiple keys, and directing the agent to get_title_block for valid names.

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 ('Update') and resource ('title block string fields on the board'), clearly identifying it as the write counterpart to the sibling get_title_block. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the read sibling as an alternative in prose.

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 note that 'Valid field names are returned by get_title_block' implies you should call the sibling first to discover keys, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or prerequisite information.

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