Delete Card

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

Beyond annotations such as destructiveHint=true, the description discloses permanence, a concrete failure mode (HTTP 400 with a specific message), and the prerequisite of deleting timelogs first. This is genuinely useful behavioral context, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The irreversible consequence is front-loaded, followed by ID resolution and the critical logged-time caveat.

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 one-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, irreversibility, a key error condition, and the remediation path. It does not specify the success response or auth requirements, but those are minor for a simple delete operation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already states 'Card ID (from kaiten_search_cards or kaiten_get_card)'. The tool description repeats this guidance but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact action: 'Permanently delete a card (cannot be undone)' — a specific verb, resource, and consequence. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like kaiten_update_card or kaiten_delete_timelog because it names the card as target and emphasizes destruction.

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 explicit when-to-use context: to delete a card, and tells the agent how to obtain the cardId via kaiten_search_cards or kaiten_get_card. It also provides a critical when-not: cards with logged time cannot be deleted and must first have their timelogs removed via kaiten_delete_timelog.

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