yuque_update_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method (PUT) and the text/dsl mutual exclusivity, but omits authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, reversibility, and whether the update is partial or full replacement. The external reference file is not a substitute for inline behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. It includes an endpoint and a reference note, which are useful but the Chinese reference may be less accessible to some agents. Overall it is efficient and not padded.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, authentication requirements, expected return behavior, and error conditions. The presence of a reference file does not compensate for missing inline guidance that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description reinforces the text/dsl mutual exclusivity but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a board resource'. It also gives the HTTP method and endpoint (PUT /yfm/boards), making the operation clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like yuque_create_board or yuque_get_board beyond the word 'update'.

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 only usage guidance is 'text or dsl, choose one', which is a parameter constraint rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool should be chosen over yuque_create_board or yuque_update_doc.

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