trello_delete_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a board' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated cards/lists, or has confirmation steps. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational 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?

The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, usage prerequisites, or what happens upon deletion (e.g., response format, error conditions). For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, the description should provide more context to ensure safe and correct use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'board_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. With only one parameter, the baseline is 4, as the schema adequately handles the parameter semantics without needing extra description.

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 'Delete a board' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (board), providing a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'trello_delete_card' or specify what 'delete' entails in this context (permanent removal vs. archiving). The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about scope and distinction from similar 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing board ownership/permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for temporary removal), or refer to sibling tools like 'trello_archive_list' or 'trello_update_board' for non-destructive options. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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