Delete Board

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, and the description adds valuable detail beyond that: it explicitly says the deletion cannot be undone and enumerates what will be destroyed (cards, columns, associated data). This gives an agent a clear mental model of the operation's consequences.

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 short and front-loaded, with the destructive scope stated in the first sentence. 'Use with caution' is mildly redundant after 'cannot be undone,' but overall the text is tight and effective.

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 simple destructive action with two fully documented parameters, the description provides all essential context: the operation is permanent, widespread in scope, and should be treated carefully. No output schema exists, but for a delete operation this omission is not a meaningful gap.

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 the schema itself provides detailed parameter descriptions, including formats, examples, and how to obtain valid values via fizzy_get_boards, fizzy_get_identity, or fizzy_get_accounts. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb/resource pair — 'Permanently delete a board' — and expands on scope by naming what is removed: cards, columns, and associated data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools such as fizzy_delete_card or fizzy_delete_column.

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 intended use is implied: choose this when you want to permanently remove an entire board. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as preserving any of the board's contents.

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