kanbini_delete_labelPermanently deletes a label from its board and removes it from every card that carries it. Confirm intent first when the label is in use; the user can undo it in the app.
Delete a label from its board. It is removed from EVERY card that carries it. The user can undo this in the app (Ctrl+Z), which puts it back on the same cards, but confirm intent first when the label is in use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it well: it discloses the cascade to every card carrying the label and the in-app undo path (Ctrl+Z) that restores it to the same cards. It omits permission/auth requirements and says nothing about what the call returns or whether undo remains available across sync/session boundaries.
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, front-loaded with the direct action and escalating to the destructive scope and the caution. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant fact (EVERY card) is capitalized for emphasis.
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 the two things an agent most needs: scope of destruction and recoverability. Only the ambiguity of the `id` argument and post-undo state keep it from being fully complete.
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 single `id` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place meaning could be added, and it never clarifies that the id is a label id rather than a board or card id. The tool name makes the intent inferable, but this is a real compensation gap at low coverage.
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 a label') plus its scope ('from its board'), which cleanly separates it from create_label and update_label among the siblings. The cascade detail ('removed from EVERY card') further pins down what the operation actually does.
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?
Gives a concrete usage condition: confirm intent first when the label is in use. It doesn't name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but no sibling is a plausible substitute for a delete, so the missing exclusion matters little.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.