Delete a board

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful recovery semantics: the delete is a reversible trash move restorable via `mapache restore <id>`, and it notes the result carries the id. It stops short of stating permission requirements, but goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what happens, how to undo it, when to use it, and what to use instead. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by telling the agent the result returns the restore id. For a one-parameter destructive tool, the action, reversibility, precondition, and alternatives are all present.

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 single `board` parameter (including the "open" sentinel) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Move a whole board to the trash") and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming delete_nodes and delete_items for partial removal. An agent can distinguish this from the other delete tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-act guidance ("Only do this when the person asks") plus an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ("To remove part of a board use delete_nodes or delete_items instead"). Nothing is left to inference.

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