Delete a saved debugging card after user confirmation, ensuring outdated or incorrect experience notes are removed from the memory network.
删除一张卡片（用户明确要求删除某张卡时调用，如"删掉这张卡"）。删除前应向用户确认。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 要删除的卡片 id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement, which is a meaningful behavioral trait, but it does not state the consequence (permanent removal) or any other side effects. The confirmation implies irreversibility, but explicit disclosure would be stronger.
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 concise sentences, with the primary purpose and usage condition front-loaded, followed by the confirmation requirement. No wasted words.
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?
For a single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the purpose, usage condition, and a critical safety step. It could explicitly mention that deletion is permanent or irreversible, but the confirmation requirement largely covers this. Overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 the parameter description clearly explains the 'id' field. The description adds no extra parameter information, but none is needed; 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?
The description clearly states the action ('delete a card') with a specific resource and includes an explicit trigger condition ('when the user explicitly asks to delete'), distinguishing it from sibling tools. The example phrase further clarifies intent.
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 specifies the exact condition for use (explicit user request) and provides a safety guideline (confirm before deleting). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but given it is the only delete tool, this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.