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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description adds the non-obvious cascading effect ('ALSO DELETES EVERY PIN ON THE BOARD') and states the board disappears from the profile's placements. It also documents the return payload even though no output schema exists. The only gap is any auth/permission prerequisite.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, what gets destroyed and that it's irreversible plus the confirm gate, then the return shape. Zero filler and the most important warning is front-loaded in caps.

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 2-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action, the cascade, irreversibility, the confirmation expectation and the response shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely without opening the schema.

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% and both parameters are described there with their sources (placement ID from profiles_placements, profile hashid). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable at full coverage but is baseline rather than added value.

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 Pinterest board') and immediately scopes the blast radius to all pins on that board, which distinguishes it unambiguously from pinterest_board_create and the generic post_delete siblings.

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 a concrete precondition — 'confirm with the user first' — that governs whether the tool should be invoked, which is unusually actionable for a delete tool. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. board update/archive) for the reversible case, so it's not a 5.

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