delete_lane

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the critical trait of irreversibility and instructs user confirmation. However, it omits other potential side effects, such as whether cards within the lane are also deleted or whether the operation fails if the lane is non-empty. The description covers the main risk but is not exhaustive.

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 two short sentences: 'Delete a lane. Irreversible — confirm with the user.' It front-loads the action, then the caution. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the primary purpose and the key warning. However, it does not specify the return format or behavior with regard to child content (e.g., cards in the lane), which an agent might need to know to handle side effects. It is adequate but has gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The schema already describes lane_id as 'Lane ID to delete (irreversible)' and board_id as 'Board ID,' which duplicates the description's irreversibility warning. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a lane.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_lanes, update_lane, and create_lane by naming the delete action. Even without naming alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use update_lane instead, or when deletion is appropriate versus archiving). The only usage-related note is 'confirm with the user,' which is a process instruction, not a tool-selection criterion. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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