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

The description discloses critical behavioral consequences beyond what annotations indicate: virtual cards are closed first, the card is unenrolled at the network, and removal is irreversible for that enrollment. This aligns with destructiveHint and adds valuable context for the agent.

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?

The description is tight and information-dense: core action, irreversibility, side effects, user confirmation requirement, id source, and re-enrollment path all fit into a few sentences without unnecessary filler.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, side effects, user-confirmation requirement, and recovery path. With the output schema present, no critical context is missing for an agent to safely use this destructive tool.

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?

The schema already fully describes attached_card_id with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to carry much parameter burden. It does reiterate the source of the id (list_added_cards), which is helpful but not significantly 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?

The description clearly identifies the action as removing/unenrolling one of the user's added cards, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It sets this apart from sibling tools like close_card or pause_card by focusing on removal of an added card enrollment.

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 says to always confirm with the user before calling, tells the agent to obtain ids from list_added_cards, and explains that the card can be re-added later using create_card with restart_setup: true. This is practical, actionable guidance for correct invocation.

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