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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that arrows attached to an erased shape are NOT erased, and that children of an erased frame survive. Those are non-obvious cascade semantics an agent would otherwise get wrong. It omits whether the operation is reversible and what the response contains.

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, front-loaded with the core action followed by the two cascading caveats. No filler and nothing out of order.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the trickiest behavior, partial cascade, is explained. What remains missing is confirmation that deletion is permanent and whether partial failures are possible for a batch of up to 500 ids.

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?

Two parameters at 50% schema coverage; the board parameter is already documented in the schema ('as in its URL'). The description adds that ids refer to shapes on that board, but says nothing about id format or the 500-item cap, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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: 'Erase shapes from a board by id.' An agent can distinguish this destructive operation from siblings like draw or read_board on the name and verb alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Offers conditional guidance on cascading cleanup ('erase it too if it should go') but no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement about irreversibility or 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.