delete_board

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is structured data, not a description contribution. Critically, the description omits that a separate confirm flag must be set to proceed, which is the single behavioral fact an agent actually needs here.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, which is good, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. One sentence is appropriate in size but does too little work.

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 mutation with an undocumented required confirmation step and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent could call it without knowing that confirm=true is needed to complete the delete.

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 50%: the confirm parameter is documented in the schema but boardId is not. The phrase 'by id' loosely identifies boardId as the key, adding marginal value, but does not specify type or format to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Delete) and resource (board) plus the lookup key (by id), so the action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like delete_board_column, delete_queue, or delete_entity, leaving the agent to rely on the name alone.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as archive_sprint or update_board. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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