Yokan Board MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only minimally describes behavior. It states the destructive action ('Deletes') and mentions authentication, but lacks critical details like permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, side effects on related data, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the authentication explanation could be slightly more detailed given the lack of annotations.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks sufficient behavioral context. The output schema exists (Returns: int), so describing return values isn't needed, but critical mutation details are missing.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: board_id ('The ID of the board to delete') and auth ('The authentication context containing user ID and token'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 the specific action ('Deletes') and resource ('a Kanban board by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_column and delete_task which target different resources. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 like update_board or get_board, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what it does without contextual usage information.

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