delete_board

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying that the operation deletes all items on the board, is not undoable, and requires user confirmation. This is exactly the type of behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the destructive scope, then adds the critical user-confirmation requirement and the sibling alternative. Every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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 two-required-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: what is destroyed, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, and when to use a different tool. Nothing crucial for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema already documents both boardId and projectId with source hints from list/create calls, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a clear verb plus resource — 'Delete a board with every item on it' — and explicitly scopes the operation beyond the tool name by noting the cascade. This also differentiates it from delete_column, which is named as the narrower alternative.

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 explicitly says to confirm with the user before invoking, and names delete_column as the preferred alternative when only part of the model is wrong. This gives an agent concrete decision criteria rather than leaving the choice to inference.

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