remove_board

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: previously recorded jobs/applications survive, the watchlist file is rewritten, and the old copy is preserved as .bak. That .bak detail is exactly the reassurance an agent needs before a destructive call. It lacks auth/prerequisite notes and error behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the retention and backup guarantees. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 single-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is preserved, and what is backed up. The remaining gap is only the return/confirmation behavior and failure modes, which are minor here.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `entry` parameter is fully documented in the schema with format and example ('greenhouse:stripe'). The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Take a board off the watchlist') with the downstream effect named ('so fetch_jobs stops checking it'). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling add_board, so an agent can distinguish them at a glance.

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 effect statement ('fetch_jobs stops checking it') implies when to reach for it versus add_board/fetch_jobs, and it clarifies the data-retention condition. It stops short of an explicit when-not (e.g., what to do if the entry is absent) or naming an alternative, but the context is unambiguous.

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