kaiten_delete_card

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the sentence "This is a destructive operation" merely restates structured data rather than adding context. Nothing is said about permanence, cascading effects (children, comments, tags), or permission requirements for a mutation tool that is flagged non-idempotent.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety note and alternative. The only waste is the filler clause "using the Kaiten delete endpoint."

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a permanent deletion tool the description omits what exactly is destroyed and whether the action can be undone, leaving material gaps for an agent deciding between delete and archive.

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 0% and the single parameter card_id is documented only by its type and exclusivity constraint. The description adds no meaning, such as whether the ID is the card's internal Kaiten identifier or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a card") and explicitly contrasts it with the archiving sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from kaiten_archive_card. The trailing phrase "using the Kaiten delete endpoint" adds no information, capping it below a 5.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: "use archive_card for archiving." That is a clear when-to-use-this-instead signal, though the description stops short of stating preconditions such as required permissions or what happens to cards with children or tags.

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