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 earns credit by naming the collateral damage beyond the card record itself: tracked cap usage and bonus progress are removed too, which an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 sentences, zero filler. The action and its data consequences come first, and the invocation condition follows, which is the right front-loading for a destructive tool.

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 one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies what is missing. It could say whether removal is reversible or requires confirmation, but nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 cardId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to source it (search_cards). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 wallet') plus the collateral scope ('with its tracked cap usage and bonus progress'), so the agent knows exactly what is deleted. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like delete_wallet or update_card, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

'Only when the user says they no longer have it or don't want it considered' gives a clear gating condition for invocation and implicitly excludes speculative removal. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g., update_card) for the case where the card should be kept but corrected.

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