kaiten_delete_card

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so "This is a destructive operation" largely restates structured data. The description adds value only through the archive_card routing pointer; it does not say whether the delete is permanent or recoverable via restore_card.

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, with the destructive nature and the archive alternative front-loaded. No filler beyond the mildly redundant "using the Kaiten delete endpoint" clause.

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 exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For an irreversible destructive action, though, the description omits whether deletion is permanent or recoverable and gives no guidance on the sole required parameter.

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 description says nothing about card_id — where to obtain it, or what happens to the card's comments/tags/members. The only documentation of the parameter lives in the raw type/constraint fields, and the description does not 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Delete a card") and explicitly names the sibling it is not — archive_card — so an agent can distinguish it from archive_card, restore_card, and the other mutating siblings without opening a 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?

Gives a clear routing rule: "use archive_card for archiving," which tells the agent when to pick the alternative. It stops short of stating when-not-to-delete at all (e.g., soft-delete recovery via restore_card) or any prerequisites.

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