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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: irreversibility, that Pins are destroyed rather than moved or archived, that Tailwind cannot restore them, and that the call is refused without confirm=true. It also discloses the response contents and warns that list_boards' Pin count is a cached snapshot that may understate the true number at risk.

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?

It is long, but front-loaded with the hard constraint first, then exclusions, then the confirmation protocol. Some redundancy exists — the confirm requirement is stated in the description and again in the schema — but nearly every clause carries operational weight.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with three required params, the description covers authorization/confirmation, irreversibility, ID provenance, multi-account disambiguation, and return shape. An output schema exists, and the description still summarizes the response appropriately without duplicating it.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: boardId must come from list_boards and must never be a collaborator board, and confirm is a refusal gate rather than a mere flag. The accountId ambiguity rule (ask the user when list_accounts returns multiple) adds genuine selection semantics beyond the schema text.

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 (permanently deletes a Pinterest board) plus the scope of the deletion (the board AND every Pin on it). It also distinguishes itself from adjacent sibling operations by excluding collaborator boards and pointing to list_boards as the ID source, so an agent can separate it from delete_board_list, delete_board_section, and delete_post.

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?

Gives an explicit gate ('Use this ONLY when the user has explicitly asked to delete a Pinterest board'), an explicit exclusion (collaborator entries belong to someone else and cannot be deleted here), and a pre-call disambiguation rule for multi-account users via list_accounts. When-not and alternative-selection guidance are both present rather than inferred.

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