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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: deletion can fail or require a fallback when tasks reference the status. It still omits whether deletion is irreversible, what happens to task history, and whether permissions are required.

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 key modes; nothing is padded. The telegrammatic phrasing ("Delete by statusId or boardId+code") is efficient but sacrifices a little readability.

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?

Covers the destructive precondition that matters most, and the schema fully documents the four parameters. For a destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, it leaves unclear what a successful call returns and whether the status must be empty or unused.

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%, so the per-field meanings are already documented. The description adds real value by revealing the two mutually exclusive lookup modes (status_id alone versus board_id+code together) and the conditional role of replacement_status_id, which the schema lists only as independent properties.

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 ("Delete by statusId or boardId+code") and names the lookup keys, which separates it from sibling delete_task/delete_agent and from update_status. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"If tasks use it, provide replacementStatusId" gives one real conditional rule for using a parameter, which is more than most tools offer. However, it says nothing about when to delete a status at all versus archiving, updating, or reordering statuses, and no alternative tool is named.

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