Yokan Board MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to tasks in the deleted column, or whether there are rate limits. The return value description is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the authentication explanation could be slightly more concise. The structure helps the agent quickly parse parameter requirements and expected outcomes.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description provides adequate parameter documentation and return value information (thanks to the output schema). However, it lacks critical context about the mutation's consequences, permissions needed, and relationship to other board operations. The presence of an output schema helps, but doesn't fully compensate for the behavioral 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly documenting all 3 parameters (board_id, column_id, auth) with their types and purposes. The auth parameter explanation ('authentication context containing user ID and token') adds valuable semantic context beyond what the bare schema provides. Only minor deduction for not explaining parameter constraints or formats.

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 target resource ('a column from a board'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_board or delete_task. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 like update_column or reorder_columns. While it's clear this deletes columns, there's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for choosing deletion over other column-modification operations available in the sibling tool set.

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