delete_agile_board

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

The description explicitly states that issues are not deleted, which is a critical behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations. The board_name partial-match behavior is also disclosed in the parameter description. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description adds non-obvious context without contradicting them.

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 brief and front-loads the core action, then lists parameters. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with clear sections; however, every sentence contributes value.

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, the description covers the essential behavior (delete with no issue cascade) and parameter semantics. The annotations provide safety context, and an output schema exists. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call the tool, though it lacks example usage or caveats.

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%, but the description provides meaningful semantics for each parameter: board_name supports partial match and instance is optional. This compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, giving an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 an agile board') and adds an important qualifier that issues are not deleted, clearly distinguishing it from delete_issue. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from related deletion tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_issue or update_agile_board. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.

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