delete_board

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the crucial fact that deletion is irreversible, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on other consequences such as cascading deletion of associated data (cards, columns), permission requirements, or whether the operation can be undone in any way. The mention of irreversibility is a clear positive, but the lack of broader disclosure keeps this at a 3.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with the core action ('Delete a board') front-loaded, followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy. The structure is efficient and immediately scannable.

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 delete operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is generally adequate. However, it omits any mention of side effects (e.g., whether deleting a board also deletes its cards, columns, etc.) or error conditions. While not strictly required, such context would help an agent anticipate consequences. The presence of the irreversibility warning is a plus, but the overall completeness falls short of a 4.

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 100%, with both parameters already having descriptive names and types. The tool description adds no additional meaning about board_id or space_id beyond what the schema already states. Per the calibration rule, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the action and resource clearly: 'Delete a board.' It is specific and unambiguous, and the name delete_board distinguishes it from other delete operations like delete_space or delete_card without requiring further context. The verb-resource pairing is exact and leaves no room for misinterpretation.

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 provides a usage hint by noting 'Irreversible — confirm with the user,' which implies a precondition for use (obtain confirmation). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archiving instead of deleting) or any exclusions. The guidance is minimal but not entirely absent, meriting a mid-level score.

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