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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial detail annotations cannot express: exactly what is destroyed (the label and its application on every card). It also discloses the dry-run/preview safety behavior of the confirm gate, which is valuable behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect and immediately followed by the confirmation requirement. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect scope and the confirm/preview mechanic well. It omits permission or authorization requirements and whether the deletion is reversible, which would be useful for a destructive operation.

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 50%: confirm is fully documented in both schema and description (redundant but consistent), while labelId has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate for that gap, though the parameter name is largely self-explanatory.

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 label from a board') and goes further to define the scope of the deletion ('removes it from every card that has it'). This cascade detail cleanly separates it from siblings like update_label, create_label, and delete_list.

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 clearly states the invocation precondition ('Needs confirm: true; without it the result is a preview'), which tells the agent how to actually execute versus preview. It does not, however, mention any alternative tool or when-not-to-use case (e.g., renaming via update_label instead of deleting).

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