delete_whiteboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Delete a whiteboard' does not disclose permanence, cascading effects, authorization requirements, or behavior for nonexistent IDs. It adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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?

Four words, no filler. It's efficient but under-specified; however, in terms of conciseness it earns full marks for structure, though the extreme brevity contributes to lack of content in other dimensions.

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 a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide complete context. It lacks details on irreversibility, side effects, and error handling. A delete operation needs more than a minimal statement.

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% with 'id' documented as 'The whiteboard UUID'. The description itself adds no parameter information, so baseline 3 applies per rubric since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Delete' with resource 'a whiteboard', clearly distinguishing from sibling whiteboard operations (create, update, duplicate, get, list) and other delete_* tools for different resources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or mention related tools like get_whiteboard or update_whiteboard. The agent is given no context for choosing this tool.

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