Delete a Boardroom todo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds important behavior beyond them: comments are cascade-deleted and agent_id is required for the audit log. It does not explicitly state irreversibility or what happens if the todo is absent, but the core destructive semantics are well covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and scope, followed by the alternative and audit requirement. Every sentence contributes directly to correct tool selection or invocation.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, why to avoid it, and the audit requirement. It is largely complete, though it could mention any permission scope or failure behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies agent_id's purpose ('required for the audit log') but adds no detail about todo_id beyond its self-explanatory name, leaving one parameter semantically thin.

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 ('Hard-deletes') and exact resource scope ('a todo and any comments on it'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling drop_todo. An agent can immediately understand this is a permanent deletion operation rather than an archival drop.

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 says 'Use sparingly' and names the preferred alternative: 'prefer drop_todo so history is preserved.' This gives both a when-not-to-use condition and a concrete sibling tool to route to instead.

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