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 still adds real value by stating the blast radius (the card disappears for everyone in the team of /ontouser), the required right (can_manage_scope on the card's scope), and that there is no trash bin, i.e. no recovery.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: effect, permission and irreversibility arrive in three short clauses with no filler. The trailing '| EN: start card, delete' keyword tag is a minor structural appendage rather than integrated prose.

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 one-parameter delete with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: how to get the id, what permission is required, who is affected, and that the action is unrecoverable.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already described as coming from onto_startcard_index; the description only reiterates this with emphasis on 'exakte id', adding no new format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Startkarte loeschen') and anchors the id to its source tool (onto_startcard_index), which cleanly separates it from the sibling read/move/save start-card tools. The bilingual 'EN: start card, delete' tag aids recognition without adding noise.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb and the pointer to onto_startcard_index for obtaining the id, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., onto_startcard_move as a non-destructive option) and no statement of when deletion should be avoided.

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