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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context beyond them: deletion is limited to the plan/placeholder, and no document is deleted. It stops short of saying what happens when the cardId refers to a non-placeholder card (error vs no-op).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the required argument, then the scope caveat. Efficient, though the provenance hint mildly repeats the schema and the title's content.

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 single-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage of safety, the description supplies the necessary scope caveat. The only omission is failure behavior when cardId is not a placeholder, which matters for an agent deciding to call it.

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 the cardId field already documents its provenance and UUID format. The description's 'Pass its cardId (from traceable_board_read)' restates what the schema provides, adding no new syntax or constraint detail.

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 ('Remove a placeholder card from a project's board') and immediately narrows the scope to placeholder-only cards, which cleanly separates it from sibling placeholder_create/update and from document deletion tools. An agent can identify the operation and its boundary without opening the 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?

Gives the precondition (cardId from traceable_board_read) and an explicit when-not condition: a card holding a document is not a placeholder. It does not name a sibling alternative for the document case (e.g. doc_archive), so routing advice stops just short of fully explicit.

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