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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description earns credit for going beyond that by naming what is destroyed ('everything saved on it') and stating irreversibility ('This cannot be undone') — details the annotations do not express. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements or downstream effects on other objects.

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: the destructive scope leads, the irreversibility and usage gate follow. No filler, nothing buried.

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, no-output-schema tool with strong annotations, the description covers what gets destroyed and that it is irreversible — the essentials for safe invocation. Minor gaps remain around permissions and any side effects on objects referencing the deleted board.

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 67%: boardId is undocumented but typed as a UUID, while projectId and workspaceId carry their own descriptions. The tool description adds nothing about any parameter, so it neither compensates for the boardId gap nor clarifies when workspaceId is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 (Delete) and resource (one of the user's Sightglass boards) and clarifies scope by noting everything saved on the board goes with it. An agent can distinguish it from sightglass_create_board and sightglass_update_board without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'only call it when the user asked for this board to be deleted.' That is a real when-to-use constraint, though it doesn't name the sibling (update_board) that covers non-destructive modification of the same resource.

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