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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the cascade scope ("everything saved on it") and the irreversibility warning, which is exactly the context an agent needs before firing a destructive call. It doesn't say what happens if the board is missing or what response comes back, keeping it at a 4.

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: the destructive scope lands first, then the usage constraint. No filler, no restatement of the title beyond what's needed.

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 mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed and when it's permitted. The remaining gaps (behavior when boardId is unknown, how projectId/workspaceId scope the delete into a workspace plan) are minor but not nothing.

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 67%: projectId and workspaceId carry their own descriptions, while the required boardId has none in either place. The description mentions no parameters at all, so with coverage above the 50% line the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 one of the user's Sightglass boards") and defines the scope of the deletion as the board plus "everything saved on it." This clearly separates it from sightglass_create_board and sightglass_update_board without ambiguity.

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 an explicit gating condition: "only call it when the user asked for this board to be deleted," which is a real when-to-use rule rather than a restatement. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g. update_board for reversible edits) or stating what to do when the intent is ambiguous, so it's strong but not fully closed.

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