delete_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states that the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, which is the most critical safety-relevant behavior for a destructive tool. It does not detail cascading effects or auth requirements, but the core irreversibility warning is well articulated.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence gives the action, the second provides a crucial warning. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple delete operation with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: permanence and irreversibility. It lacks explicit comparison to archive_card, but the danger of the operation is clearly communicated. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention the 'confirm' flag or other parameters. Since the schema already documents each parameter clearly, the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a card.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like archive_card by emphasizing permanence, and from delete_board by specifying 'card' as the target.

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 implies usage through the warning 'Use this tool with caution as deletion cannot be undone,' but it does not explicitly state when to use delete_card versus alternatives like archive_card. There is no mention of alternative tools or conditions for use, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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