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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial guard that only empty boards are deleted, that non-empty boards are refused, and that task_add creates boards as a side effect so deletion would lose work. This explains the real-world consequence beyond the annotation flags.

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, front-loaded main action, and each clause supports safe use. The garbled phrase 'with one named' is a clarity defect that prevents a 5.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: purpose, refusal condition, rationale, and consequence are all present. It only misses an explicit pointer that tasks must be removed via task_delete before retrying, plus a clear statement of the success response.

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% and already documents project as the board to remove with the 'must hold no tasks' constraint. The description's 'empty board' and 'free-tier slot back' add useful context but not new parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

The description opens with a concrete verb and object — 'Delete an empty board' — and immediately distinguishes itself from task_delete and project_list by scoping to boards and requiring emptiness. The free-tier-slot note adds context beyond the title.

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 clearly states the condition for use (board must be empty) and explicitly warns that non-empty boards are refused, which prevents misuse. It does not name a sibling like task_delete as the fallback for clearing tasks first, so the alternative path is implied rather than explicit.

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