Delete keywords

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data; the description earns credit for adding that rank history is destroyed along with the keyword, which is not derivable from annotations or schema. It does not discuss failure behavior for unknown ids or whether deletion is bulk-atomic.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive consequence before the alternative guidance. No filler, though the second sentence's mixed phrasing keeps it just short of ideal.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and destructive/idempotent hints, this covers purpose, blast radius, and routing to the safer sibling. Only the bulk limit and behavior on invalid ids are left entirely to the schema.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents its source (get_project_board), the 1-100 array bounds, and id length limits. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Permanently delete keywords and their rank history" names a specific verb (delete), resource (keywords), and secondary consequence (rank history loss), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings like edit_keyword and add_keywords.

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 names the preferred alternative and the exact condition that selects it: use edit_keyword hidden:true unless the owner wants them gone. This is a when/when-not statement with a named sibling.

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