delete_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden, and it leads with the critical fact that the operation is permanent and irreversible. It does not cover permission requirements or what happens to the board's contained cards, but the single most important behavioral trait for a delete operation is prominently and unambiguously disclosed.

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?

A compact warning plus one recommendation, with the irreversibility fact front-loaded in the first clause. Every element earns its place: the danger, the consequence, and the safer alternative — zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, that destruction is permanent, and the safer alternative. Minor gaps remain such as confirmation behavior or error conditions for invalid boardIds, but nothing an agent needs to make the core call-or-don't-call decision is missing.

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%, with boardId already documented as a 24-character string, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.

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: 'SUPPRIME DÉFINITIVEMENT un board Trello' (permanently deletes a Trello board). The IRRÉVERSIBLE warning and the contrast with close_board distinguish it from the sibling that archives, so an agent can tell exactly what operation this performs and how it differs.

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?

Explicitly recommends the safer alternative: 'archivez d'abord avec close_board', which tells the agent to prefer archival when permanent deletion is not intended. It stops short of stating an explicit exclusion rule like 'use only when permanent removal is required', but the when-to-use context for a destructive tool is clear.

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