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 still adds real value: permanence ("for good") and the non-obvious review-step restriction that would otherwise cause a failed call. It stops short of noting what else is destroyed (replies, attachments) or required permissions.

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 filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint following. Nothing repeats the title or annotations wastefully.

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?

Output schema and annotations carry return values and safety semantics, so the description only needs the operational gotchas — and it supplies the most important one. It leaves minor questions open (whether attached replies vanish with the card, auth requirements), keeping it just under complete.

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 each parameter already documents its source (board_create/nodiom_list_docs, board_read, API key default). The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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 ("Removes a card from the board") with a permanence qualifier that distinguishes it from the reversible board_move_card or board_update_card. An agent can tell what this does 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?

Explicitly names the blocking precondition (a card awaiting review on a board with a review step cannot be deleted) and routes to the alternative remedy ("move it instead"). Both when-not and alternative are stated outright.

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