Delete a board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key behavioral facts: the deletion is cascading (lists, cards, labels go too) and it is recoverable via Ctrl+Z in the app, which meaningfully changes the risk calculus of a destructive call. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether the return/confirmation behaves differently for boards with content.

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: what it destroys first, routing/alternative second, recoverability last. No restatement of the title and 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers destruction scope, the safer alternative, and reversibility — everything needed to avoid a mistaken call. Only access-control expectations and the shape of the result are left unstated.

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 0%, so the single `id` parameter is documented nowhere except the description, and the description never explicitly says the parameter is the board identifier or what format it takes. "Confirm the board by name first" implies the id resolves to a specific board but leaves the agent to infer that `id` is the board's id rather than, say, a name.

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?

"Permanently delete a board with all of its lists, cards and labels" names a specific verb, resource and cascade scope in one clause. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling kanbini_archive_board and from the list/card level delete tools.

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?

It names the preferred alternative (kanbini_archive_board), states the condition that justifies this tool instead ("unless the user clearly asks for it to be deleted"), and adds a procedural precondition ("confirm the board by name first"). This is explicit when/when-not guidance rather than implied usage.

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