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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable scope transparency: card positions, collapsed flags, and notes are untouched. This tells the agent exactly what will and won't be affected, going beyond the annotation alone.

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?

Two sentences with the action front-loaded. The first sentence names the operation and resource; the second explains the two invocation modes and explicitly scopes what is untouched. No filler 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 destructive tool with an output schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description is complete: it covers target, deletion modes, and non-affected board data. The schema handles edge behavior like all being ignored when strokeIds is supplied, so nothing essential 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%, so projectId, all, and strokeIds are already fully documented. The description's 'stroke ids to remove, or set all to true' restates the schema semantics rather than adding new parameter-level detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete drawings from a project's board.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like draw_stroke, list_drawings, add_board_image, and update_board, none of which remove drawings.

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 gives concrete operational guidance: pass strokeIds to remove specific drawings, or set all=true to clear the board. The deletion context is clear, though it doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives such as draw_stroke or update_board.

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