删除白板元素

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful boundary that only the enumerated IDs are affected and no page/board is removed, but says nothing about partial-failure behavior, non-existent IDs, or auth needs.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting useful detail, but nothing stated is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation semantics. The description establishes the deletion scope, leaving only edge cases (invalid IDs, partial deletes) unaddressed, which is acceptable for this level of 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?

Schema coverage is 67% – boardId and expectedVersion carry their own descriptions, while ids is self-evident as an ID array. The description contributes nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is warranted given the schema does the documenting.

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 (delete the explicitly given element IDs) and immediately bounds the scope, distinguishing it from whiteboard_delete_board and page-level deletion. The scope boundary makes it clear what the tool does not touch, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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 negative scope ('will not delete pages or the whole whiteboard') implies when other tools like whiteboard_delete_board or whiteboard_manage_pages are appropriate, but no alternative is named explicitly. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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