delete_board

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the baseline is low, yet the description adds two non-obvious facts: the action is irreversible and dependent grid columns are left pointing at a deleted query. It does not describe what the preview (confirm=false) returns, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded with the irreversible verb and resource, followed by the sibling routing and the side-effect caveat. No restatement of the name or schema content.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key facts: permanence, naming disambiguation, and the cross-entity consequence. Only the preview return behavior and any deletion-blocking conditions are omitted, and part of that lives in the schema.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the confirm=false preview vs. confirm=true apply protocol and where board_id comes from. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 and resource ('Delete one saved work package query') and disambiguates 'board' as a saved query, which is the main naming ambiguity. It also names delete_grid as the tool for the adjacent grid concept, so an agent can tell the siblings apart without reading 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?

The second sentence routes the agent away from this tool when the target is actually a board grid ('board grids themselves are deleted with delete_grid'), giving an explicit alternative. It stops short of stating preconditions for deletion (e.g., ownership or use-in-grid restrictions).

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