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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the single most decision-relevant fact they cannot express: the Pins inside the section are NOT deleted and move back to the board. It also pre-empts a destructive misselection by contrasting the blast radius with delete_board, and adds an account-ambiguity safety rule.

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 use case, then the critical side effect, then the disambiguation, then the escalation rule — each sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant payload with no restatement of the name or schema.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% parameter documentation, the remaining burden is behavioral and routing context — exactly what the description supplies. An agent has everything needed to call this safely and 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already documents its source tool (list_boards, list_accounts, list_board_sections), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes the sectionId provenance and adds account-choice guidance rather than new per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('deletes a section by sectionId') plus the scope ('from a Pinterest board'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_board. An agent can identify the operation and its argument source without opening the schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants to remove a section'), names the sibling it must not be confused with ('not the same as delete_board'), and gives a concrete pre-call protocol for ambiguous account selection. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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