Delete multiple look boards in one operation by supplying their IDs and setting confirmation to true.
Delete multiple look boards in a single operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookBoardIds | Yes | Array of look board IDs to delete | |
| confirmDelete | Yes | Confirm deletion (required to be true for safety) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive bulk operation. It discloses only that multiple boards go in one call; irreversibility, permission requirements, cascade effects on buttons or cue references, and the confirmDelete safety gate (left to the schema) are all unstated.
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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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 destructive multi-record operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover at least reversibility and failure behavior. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the consequences of the call.
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%, so both parameters (lookBoardIds, confirmDelete) are already documented in the schema, including the safety semantics of confirmDelete. The description adds no syntax, limit, or behavioral detail beyond that baseline.
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 (delete) and resource (look boards) with an explicit bulk scope, which cleanly separates it from the singular delete_look_board sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling or any alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says when to prefer this over delete_look_board, whether the operation is atomic across IDs, or what happens on partial failure. The bulk intent is implied by the name and description only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.