Permanently deletes a Trello board label and removes it from every card using it. Use only when full removal is intended; to unassign it from one card, use card_label_remove.
Use only when explicitly asked to permanently delete a board label, removing it from every card using it. Use card_label_remove to unassign it from just one card while preserving the label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| labelId | Yes | Trello label id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key destructive behavior: the deletion is permanent and cascades across every card using the label. It does not mention permission requirements, confirmation behavior, or what happens if the label id is missing, which keeps it short of a 5 for a destructive operation.
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 tightly written sentences with the usage constraint front-loaded and the alternative named second. Every clause contributes either a condition, a consequence, or a routing hint, with no wasted text.
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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential safety context: permanence, cascade scope, and the less-destructive alternative. It leaves out permissions and missing-label behavior, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.
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?
There is only one parameter, labelId, and its schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about the id format or source beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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: permanently delete a board label, with the consequence that it is removed from every card using it. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling card_label_remove, which only unassigns from one card, so an agent can select correctly without opening schemas.
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?
Gives a clear when-to-use rule: only when explicitly asked to permanently delete a label. It names the alternative card_label_remove and the condition that selects it, so the boundary between the two tools is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.