kaiten_delete_lane

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says a lane is deleted. It does not disclose whether cards in the lane are deleted, moved, or archived, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are required — a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and object appear immediately. It is appropriately sized for what it states, though it could have included additional behavioral context without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with two fully documented required parameters and no output schema, but it is destructive and has zero annotation coverage. The description fails to address the cascade effects of deleting a lane, such as the fate of contained cards, reversibility, and permission requirements, leaving an agent unable to fully anticipate the operation's consequences.

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%, as both lane_id and board_id are documented in the input schema, so the description is not required to add parameter-level detail. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline 3 applies given the high schema 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('lane') within 'Kaiten board', making the operation unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like kaiten_list_lanes, kaiten_create_lane, and kaiten_update_lane via the resource name and verb. However, it does not explicitly call out alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus updating, archiving, or listing lanes, and no prerequisites or conditions (e.g., whether the lane must be empty or what happens to its cards). The only usage signal is implied by the verb and resource themselves, which is effectively restating the purpose.

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