delete_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Delete" implies a destructive operation, but the description does not disclose irreversibility, potential cascade effects on related data (e.g., sprints, issues, links), or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool, though it does at least state the primary action.

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?

The description is concise in word count (three words), but it is under-specified. It fronts the core action clearly but omits critical behavioral context. This is not effective conciseness; it is an underspecified description that could have included important safety details without losing brevity.

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, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the consequences of deleting a board, such as whether associated issues or sprints are also deleted, whether the action is reversible, or if any safeguards exist. Although an output schema exists, the description must still convey the tool's impact, and it fails to do so.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter board_id, described as "Board ID" in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema.

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 "Delete a board." is essentially the tool name expanded into a sentence. It restates the action and resource without adding any additional detail, making it tautological. It does not specify what a board is, what deletion entails, or how it differs from related board tools beyond the verb.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios where deletion is appropriate, or warn against using it for non-destructive operations. There is no context that would help an agent decide between this and other board-related tools.

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