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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-obvious side-effect detail — that attached arrows and contents of a removed frame are preserved rather than deleted — which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. It still omits irreversibility and any cascade behavior for subitems.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the non-obvious consequence. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 key ambiguity an agent faces with deletion — what happens to dependent objects. It is slightly thin on irreversibility and partial-failure behavior, but annotations carry the destructive warning.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate at all: it says nothing about boardId or itemIds syntax, formats, or the 500-item batch cap. The parameters are largely self-describing by name, so this lands at the baseline rather than below it.

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: 'Remove items from a board.' That contrasts implicitly with move_items and edit_block in the sibling list, but the description never names an alternative to make the boundary explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required permissions), and no routing to alternatives such as move_items when the user actually wants relocation rather than deletion. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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