Permanently remove a look board and every button on it from LacyLights. Requires lookBoardId and confirmDelete set to true to prevent accidental loss.
Delete a look board and all its buttons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookBoardId | Yes | Look board ID to delete | |
| confirmDelete | Yes | Confirm deletion of look board and all its buttons (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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important behavioral fact that child buttons are destroyed along with the board. However, it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and whether the operation can be recovered via the sibling undo tool, which matters for a destructive mutation.
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 ten-word sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the highest-value detail (child deletion). No filler whatsoever.
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?
Adequate but thin for a destructive, no-annotation mutation tool: it covers the cascade effect but says nothing about reversibility, undo availability, or the bulk alternative in a sibling set that includes bulk_delete_look_boards, undo, and remove_look_from_board. Nothing an agent needs to call it is missing, but routing context is not.
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 lookBoardId and the confirmDelete safety flag are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the confirmation requirement, so baseline 3 applies.
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 board) plus the cascade scope: 'and all its buttons'. This implicitly separates it from remove_look_from_board, which removes a look from a board rather than deleting the board itself, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing explains when to delete a single board versus using bulk_delete_look_boards, nor any preconditions beyond what the schema enforces. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.