Delete Column

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

While the annotations already set destructiveHint to true, the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond that flag: it explains that cards in the column will be moved to triage and that the operation 'cannot be undone.' This gives an agent a clear picture of the side effects and permanence, which is exactly the kind of context destructive operations need.

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 three terse sentences: the core action, the side effect, and the explicit warning about irreversibility. Every sentence contributes needed information and the most important fact is front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

All three required parameters are fully documented in the schema, the annotations mark the operation destructive, and the description adds the crucial behavioral consequence of moving cards to triage and irreversible deletion. For a delete operation with this level of schema and annotation support, an agent has enough information to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 schema descriptions already cover 100% of the parameters, providing examples and telling the agent where to obtain valid IDs from sibling tools like fizzy_get_boards, fizzy_get_columns, and fizzy_get_identity. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level details, but because the schema is rich, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Permanently delete a workflow column from a board,' which names the specific verb, target resource, and scope. The added consequence that cards are moved to triage further clarifies what this operation does and distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like fizzy_delete_board, fizzy_delete_card, and fizzy_delete_comment.

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 clearly implies the intended use case—deleting a workflow column—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does note the behavioral consequence (cards moved to triage), which gives helpful context, but it never references sibling tools such as fizzy_update_column or fizzy_move_card_to_column.

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