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

Adds substantial detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses that all nested content (lists, cards, comments, attachments) is destroyed, that shared users are affected, and that the operation is irreversible. It also describes the confirm-based preview behavior, which is critical for a destructive tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by the irreversibility warning and the confirm preview behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical agent needs: what will be deleted, the irreversibility, the sharing impact, and how to preview safely. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema already documents the confirm parameter in detail, and the description repeats that preview behavior. For boardId, the description adds only the ownership constraint ('a board the user owns'), which is helpful but not a full semantic treatment. With 50% schema coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 the exact verb and resource ('Permanently deletes a board') and specifies the cascade scope: lists, cards, comments, attachments, and shared users. The use of 'permanently' and 'Irreversible' distinguishes it from reversible board operations such as archive_board or restore_board, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explains the confirm preview mechanism, which is useful usage context, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like archive_board or delete_list. The implied usage is clear from the verb, yet no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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