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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description goes further by disclosing that the deletion cascades across cards, comments, and attachments and that there is no undo. It also gives a practical safe alternative, adding substantial context beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

The description is two tightly packed sentences with no wasted words. The irreversible scope is front-loaded before the safer alternative, which is the right emphasis for a dangerous operation.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with built-in annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential risks, recommended prerequisite, and safer alternative. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'project_id' is already documented as 'Board to delete.' The description does not add syntax, format, or other meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a whole board') and immediately scopes the blast radius to every card, comment, and attachment. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_kanban_card or delete_kanban_column.

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?

Explicitly warns that the action is irreversible with no undo, tells the agent to ask the publisher first, and names the preferable alternative ('archive via update_kanban_project(archived=true), which is reversible'). This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance needed for a destructive operation.

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