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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation waits for the owner's approval, meaning the effect is deferred and conditional — something an agent could not know from the annotations alone. It stops short of saying whether the trash is restorable or what happens if approval is denied.

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, zero waste, with the operation and its scope front-loaded and the approval caveat second. Every clause carries 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?

With only two fully documented parameters and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. The remaining gap is the lifecycle after the call (deferred approval, recoverable via restore_card) which matters for an agent planning a multi-step workflow.

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%: both board_id and card_ids are documented, including the 1–50 limit and that a sub-board's board_id is accepted. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('Move ... to the trash') and resource ('cards or sub-boards'), plus a familiar analogy ('as the Delete key does'). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (restore_card, list_trash), but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

'As the Delete key does' implies the intended context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs restore_card/move_card, nor guidance on what to do after trashing (list_trash, restore_card). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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