moa_board_delete

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. It reveals that this is a tombstone delete: the key disappears from reads/lists but the deletion record is retained in the append-only JSONL. This is useful context, though it does not mention permissions or reverse operations.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Tombstone-delete a key') and packs in the key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 delete tool, the description adequately explains the deletion semantics and the append-only record, covering the main behavioral context. Since there is no output schema, some return-value detail could be added, but the description is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides descriptions for scope, author, and workspace (75% coverage), leaving only 'key' undocumented. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond naming 'a key', so it stays at the baseline for 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 uses a specific verb 'tombstone-delete' and identifies the resource 'key', clearly distinguishing it from sibling read/write/list tools. It also explains the observable effect: the key disappears from read/list while the deletion record remains.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as moa_board_write or moa_board_wait. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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