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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing that the operation is IRREVERSIBLE and that the task key is never reused, plus a required approval step. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three compact sentences: the action first, then the critical warnings, then the safer alternative. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the safety profile, the irreversibility and key-reuse caveats, the approval requirement, and the fallback action. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive tool responsibly is 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 100%, so both parameters (project_id, card_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or identifier details beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a card') and immediately differentiates itself from the alternative (moving the card off the board). It is clear enough to select without opening the schema, though 'card' is slightly generic where the manifest name is 'kanban_card'.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('ask the publisher before calling this') and names the alternative path plus the condition that selects it ('To take a card off the board without losing it, move it instead'), routing the agent to move_kanban_card. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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