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 genuinely new behavioral context: this is a soft delete and the card disappears from the app, which tells the agent the record is not hard-purged. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is reversible or how to restore.

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?

Two short sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded, and the soft-delete caveat placed immediately after. 'from the app' is slightly redundant but nothing else is wasted.

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 mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including the soft-delete semantics. The unexplained brandId and the absence of failure/permission behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains contentId only implicitly ('by id') and says nothing about brandId, leaving half of the two parameters undocumented anywhere. The one hint given does not compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a content card') plus the identifying key ('by id'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling mutations like update_content or move_content. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the other delete-ish siblings (delete_saved_reference, detach_content_reference), so it falls short of a 5.

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 'by id' phrasing and 'from the board/calendar' scope imply the usage context, but there is no statement of when to use this versus unschedule_content, detach_content_reference, or archive-type alternatives, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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