Removes a column from a Standup board, blocking deletion if cards remain unless you set deleteCards to true to permanently remove them too.
Delete a column. Refused while it has cards, unless deleteCards is true, which permanently deletes them too.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardId | Yes | The board identifier | |
| columnId | Yes | The column identifier | |
| deleteCards | No | Also delete the cards in the column (default false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the guard condition that blocks deletion and the cascading, permanent destruction of cards. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether the column removal itself is recoverable, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the refusal condition and the destructive opt-in front-loaded in that order. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical hazards an agent must know before calling: the precondition and the permanent cascade. Missing only peripheral details like permissions or reversibility of the column itself.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to deleteCards beyond the schema text by stressing the deletion is permanent and tied to the refusal behavior. boardId/columnId gain nothing, so not a 5.
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 and resource ("Delete a column") that is immediately distinguishable from sibling delete_card and the rename/reorder column tools. No explicit sibling routing, but the action and target are unambiguous.
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 gives a meaningful precondition (refused while the column has cards) and the escape hatch (deleteCards), which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, name alternatives or say when to prefer this over e.g. moving cards out first, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.