eda_dmt_board_delete_board

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

The description discloses an important behavior: if the board does not exist, the call returns `false` instead of throwing, and the return value indicates success. However, with no annotations, it leaves gaps about side effects, irreversibility, and permissions, which are relevant to 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the function signature, followed by a short Chinese explanation, a remark, and a return note. Some redundancy exists between the tool name, the signature, and the Chinese text, but the overall length is appropriate.

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?

The description explains the basic behavior and failure mode but omits important context such as how `boardName` is resolved (display name vs. UUID), the role of `windowId`, and any prerequisite or consequences beyond the boolean return. For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, more context would be valuable.

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 description adds the actual parameter name and type `boardName: string` and return type `Promise<boolean>`, which the generic `args` schema does not name. This helps an agent understand what to put in the positional args array, beyond the schema's generic description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'dmt_Board.deleteBoard' and '删除板子' (delete board), making the operation clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create or copy board, so differentiation relies on the tool name rather than the description.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or related tools for other resource types.

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