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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and reveals critical traits: deletion is irreversible (unwiderruflich), cascades to columns, cards, and sub-boards, and requires owner permissions. This fully informs the agent of the destructive and authorized nature.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes essential caveats. No wasted words.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, the irreversible/cascading effect, and the permission requirement. Nothing critical 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?

The schema has one parameter, board_id, with no description. The tool description does not explain the parameter, but the tool name and purpose make its meaning obvious. The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema, compensating for the 0% 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' (loescht) and the resource 'board', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_card or delete_column. Mentioning sub-boards further specifies the unique scope of this deletion.

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 implies when to use this tool (when deleting an entire board) and notes an owner-only restriction, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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