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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the permission requirements for deleting messages beyond one's own, which is important behavioral context for a destructive action. The destructive nature is evident from the verb 'deletes', so while it doesn't mention irreversibility, the added access policy nuance pushes it above a baseline 3.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies access policies. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and who can use it under what conditions. It is complete enough for a straightforward delete operation, though it could arguably mention that deletion is permanent, but the verb 'deletes' implies this.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, message_id, with a clear description ('The ID of the message to delete'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Deletes a single board message.' This is a specific verb (deletes) plus resource (board message), and it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like retro.board.messages.list and retro.board.messages.update, as it is the only message deletion tool.

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 provides clear context on when the tool can be used by explaining the access policy: users can delete their own messages, or any message with board update rights (requiring mcp:write scope). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the permission context is valuable.

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