delete_list

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals the key behavioral rule: a list with cards is never deleted. It also explains the workaround, which is essential because the tool name alone might imply it deletes any list. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with this non-destructive but write-capable behavior, and the description adds critical context.

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 sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds necessary context without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the purpose, the key precondition (empty list), and the alternative action. An output schema exists, so return values are handled. Minor gap: it doesn't specify what actually happens when attempting to delete a non-empty list (error vs. no-op), but this is not critical for decision-making.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (project_id and list_name_or_id), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 begins with 'Delete an empty list', which is a specific verb+resource with a clear constraint. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning update_list as the alternative for retiring a stage with cards, and clarifies that non-empty lists are never deleted.

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 states when to use (empty list) and when not to use (list holding cards), and provides a concrete alternative: move cards out first or use update_list(list_type='inactive'). This is clear, actionable guidance.

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