ghl_brand_board_delete_design_kit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the Sub-Account token requirement, the OAuth scope 'brand-boards/design-kit.write', and the API version/source. It stops short of saying whether deletion is reversible or what happens to a kit that is set as default.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first two lines, followed by endpoint and auth metadata. The repetition of the title as the first line is mild redundancy, and the version/source provenance is arguably noise for an agent, but nothing is padded out.

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 two-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth requirements, and scope, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is side-effect information (cascade effects, default-kit implications, response body), which a destructive operation ideally would state.

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 100% and both parameters are documented with examples in the schema, so the description adds little. It confirms the deletion targets a design kit identified by ID within a location but provides no additional format or constraint details. 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a design kit by ID') and even supplies the exact REST endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like ghl_brand_board_update_design_kit, ghl_brand_board_get_design_kit, and ghl_brand_board_delete without opening any schema.

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 usage is implied by the name and the 'by ID' phrasing, and the note about requiring a Sub-Account (location) token gives a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, and no warning about when deletion should be avoided (e.g., a kit that is currently the default).

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