Vibe Board VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses critical behavioral traits like irreversibility, safety guard defaults, cascading effects on subtasks and activity_log, and the force-delete override. This covers mutation, destruction, and side-effects comprehensively.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by key details in a logical flow (safety guard, override, associated deletions, irreversibility). Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is highly complete—covering behavior, parameters, and consequences. It lacks only minor details like error responses or exact return values, but given the context, it provides sufficient guidance for safe use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds some context (e.g., 'safety guard' for require_done, 'orphaned but kept' for cascade_subtasks), but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema's detailed descriptions. Baseline 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 clearly states the specific action ('hard-delete a task and optionally its subtasks') and distinguishes it from siblings like board_update_task or board_get_task by emphasizing its destructive, irreversible nature. It goes beyond a simple verb to specify scope and consequences.

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 clear context on when to use it (e.g., default safety guard for done tasks, override with require_done=false) and mentions associated deletions (activity_log entries). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like board_update_task for archiving or specify prerequisites beyond task status.

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