delete_grid

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds real value by disclosing irreversibility and the cascading removal of column queries in 17.0+. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what happens when the grid is already gone, and the 'as far as you may delete them' clause is vague about partial cascade.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the eligibility constraint, then the version note and the irreversibility warning. Two of the sentences are efficient; the 'as far as you may delete them' phrasing is ambiguous filler that costs clarity.

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 covers the essentials: what is destroyed, what cascades, when it is blocked, and that it is irreversible. The remaining gap is procedural (how to obtain grid_id and the preview-then-confirm flow), which the schema partially covers.

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 only 50%: confirm is documented in the schema but grid_id has no description anywhere. The description never explains where grid_id comes from (e.g., list_grids) or that confirm=false yields a preview, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 board grid') and immediately scopes which grids are eligible, which separates it from delete_board and update_grid without ambiguity. An agent can identify the object being removed and the excluded grid types in one read.

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?

Explicitly states the when-not case ('My Page and project overview grids cannot be deleted'), which prevents a class of failing calls. It does not mention alternatives such as update_grid for non-destructive changes or delete_board, so guidance is clear but not complete.

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