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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the key behavioral detail that deletion cascades to all ideas on the board. This goes beyond the annotation by specifying scope, though it does not mention irreversibility or any confirmation requirement (which the schema covers).

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and its most important consequence. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive operation with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its scope. It could mention that confirm must be true, but that is already in the schema, so 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both boardId and confirm, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no extra parameter context, meeting the baseline for full coverage without requiring compensation.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('idea board') and explicitly clarifies it removes every idea on it, distinguishing it from the sibling idea_remove that targets individual ideas. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 this is for board-level deletion but does not explicitly mention alternatives like idea_remove or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of the name and the cascade note make usage fairly clear, but it relies on inference rather than explicit direction.

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