delete_board

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial behavioral details beyond that: 'not undoable', 'every item on it', and the instruction to confirm with the user first. This meaningfully exceeds what structured annotations communicate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the most critical safety information, and zero filler. The sentence about delete_column adds routing value without bloating the text.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the operation scope, destructive consequences, confirmation requirement, and the main alternative. It doesn't explain return values or parameter details, but those are minor given the simplicity and the self-evident parameter names.

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 carries the full burden for parameter semantics. However, it offers no explanation of projectId or boardId — it only implies boardId via the noun 'board'. While the names are self-explanatory, the description does not add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a board with every item on it'), and explicitly contrasts itself with delete_column by clarifying when each is appropriate. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools with no ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer delete_column when only part of the model is wrong, and instructs to confirm with the user first. This gives an agent both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus a safe interaction protocol.

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