brand_boards_delete_brand_board

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description merely repeats the action without adding context about permanence, side effects, or irreversibility. It offers no additional behavioral information beyond what the annotations provide, so it adds no value in this dimension.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core action, although it essentially restates the tool name. For a simple delete operation, this level of conciseness is appropriate and well-structured.

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?

The tool is straightforward with two parameters, both documented in the schema. The description does not mention that deletion is permanent, but the annotation covers destructive behavior. It lacks guidance on when to use it, but given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate. No explicit mention of return values or side effects is present, but the output schema is absent, so the description could have added more context.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (id and locationId). The tool description does not elaborate on them, but with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline.

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 'Delete a Brand Board' states a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the action 'delete' is sufficient to distinguish it from update/get operations. The purpose is unambiguous, though it adds no extra specificity beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as brand_boards_update_brand_board or brand_boards_get_brand_board_by_id. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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