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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: children of frames/mind-maps are released (not deleted), connectors dangle, and the operation is transactional with a 100-element limit. It also mentions workspace requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no waste. The main action and limit are front-loaded, followed by critical behavioral nuances. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is scannable.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, side effects (children release, dangling connectors), limits, and workspace requirements. It is complete and actionable.

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% with both parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that ids are element uids from get_whiteboard and clarifying the implications of deleting certain element types (frames/mind-maps). This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 (delete), resource (whiteboard elements), and key constraints (up to 100, transactional). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the specific behaviors of frames/mind-maps and connectors, making it unambiguous which tool to use for bulk whiteboard element 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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool (deleting multiple whiteboard elements) and notes the prerequisite that uids come from get_whiteboard. It also mentions the Pro/trial workspace requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling set makes this implicit.

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