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

The description transparently discloses that the first call performs no deletion and returns a confirm_token, and that the second call, after user confirmation, uses the same card_id and confirm_token to complete the deletion. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the side-effect-free initial step.

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 concise, well-structured, and communicates the two-step deletion process in two clear sentences. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

The description gives enough context for the tool's invocation flow, including the first call's token return and the second call's required inputs. It does not elaborate on failure cases or the second call's return value, but these are not critical for correct usage given the available annotations and output schema indication.

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?

The confirm_token parameter is well described in both the schema and the description. The card_id parameter lacks an explicit schema description, but the description's mention of 'same card_id' and the tool's purpose make its meaning clear. The confirmation flow provides additional context that compensates for the partial schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: delete a card, and it differentiates from sibling tools like delete_deck and update_card by specifying the card-level deletion. The two-step confirmation flow is also described, making the intended operation 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?

The description explains when to use the tool (to delete a card) and outlines the two-step confirmation process. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as delete_deck, but the card-specific language is sufficient for appropriate selection among the listed sibling tools.

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