delete_agile_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that issues are not deleted, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not address permissions, reversibility, or conditions for deletion, leaving some gaps.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args list is succinct but adds useful details. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists (although not provided), the description could have mentioned the return value. It adequately covers the deletion behavior but leaves the response undefined. With no output schema details, it's slightly incomplete.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's 'Args' section adds significant value. It specifies that board_name supports partial match and that instance is optional, which goes beyond the schema's type and default.

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 clearly states 'Delete an agile board' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool by noting that issues are not deleted, which differentiates it from other delete tools like delete_issue.

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 note that issues are not deleted (implying safe operation), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_issue or delete_comment. The partial match hint for board_name is useful but does not constitute full usage guidelines.

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