Favro MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes cards and mentions the 'everywhere' parameter for broader deletion, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects linked data (e.g., comments or attachments), or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a card'). The parameter explanations are concise and directly relevant, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists. Overall, it avoids unnecessary fluff and is well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but misses behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, and side effects. The output schema handles return values, so the description's 'Returns' note is adequate but not essential.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'card' accepts ID, sequential ID, or name; 'board' is needed for name lookups; and 'everywhere' deletes from all boards. This clarifies parameter purposes and constraints that aren't evident from the schema alone, though it doesn't cover all edge cases (e.g., format of sequential IDs).

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a card', making the purpose immediately apparent. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_column' or 'update_card' (which might also remove cards in some contexts), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing board context for name lookups), when deletion is appropriate versus updating or archiving, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_card' or 'move_card' for card management. The parameter explanations imply some usage context but don't constitute explicit guidelines.

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