Delete a column from a Yandex Tracker board by providing board ID, column ID, and current board version; set confirm to true for this destructive action.
Delete a board column (version = board version).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardId | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | Set to true to confirm this destructive/bulk operation | |
| version | Yes | Current board version | |
| columnId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful concurrency detail that the version argument must equal the board version, but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to cards/issues in the column, or the role of the confirm flag.
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?
A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The version parenthetical is slightly cryptic but does not waste space.
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, non-reversible operation with no output schema and a confirm parameter, the description omits what the confirm flag does, what is lost when the column is deleted, and any permission requirements. Too thin for the risk level of the tool.
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 50%; 'version' already carries 'Current board version' in the schema, so the parenthetical is close to a restatement rather than new meaning. boardId and columnId are undocumented but self-explanatory by name, so the baseline 3 for a partially documented schema is appropriate.
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 column'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like update_board_column, get_board_column, and delete_board. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives, and no statement of prerequisites or consequences. The parenthetical about version is a parameter note rather than usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer everything about context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.