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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces that. It adds behavioral nuance beyond annotations by warning that a mismatched kind silently targets the wrong table, a crucial edge case. It also clarifies there's no bulk erase, which is not covered by annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and structured to lead with the core operation, then the critical kind-matching requirement, then the retrieval path, and finally the bulk-deletion caveat. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, how to get correct parameters, the pitfall of kind mismatch, and the absence of bulk operations. It doesn't explicitly state irreversibility or return behavior, but annotations and lack of output schema make that less critical.

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 only 25% (only access_key is documented), so the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the `kind` parameter with explicit mappings ('text' for text nodes, 'line' for freehand strokes, 'image' for images). It also references `id` and `board_id` indirectly via get_board, though it doesn't detail them further.

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 clearly states the action: 'Delete a single item by id.' It specifies the resource (item) and the method (delete), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing the three supported kinds. The warning about the wrong kind silently targeting the wrong table adds specificity.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Get the id + type from get_board.' It also gives a when-not-to-use: 'There is no bulk/erase-all tool: loop if you need to delete multiple items.' This clearly differentiates from alternatives and sets expectations.

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