wb_cards_move_to_trash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the action ('Move cards to trash' / 'удалить карточки') without mentioning reversibility, side effects, required permissions, or result behavior. It does not contradict any annotation, but it leaves the behavioral profile thin.

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 a single action-first sentence with no unnecessary context. The Russian parenthetical '(удалить карточки)' is redundant with the English text, but the overall length is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter operation with full schema coverage, the description provides the essential action and input. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits the expected result and whether the action is reversible, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 already documents nm_ids as 'nmIDs to delete' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by nmID' confirms the relevant identifier but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Move'), a clear resource ('cards'), a destination ('trash'), and an identifier type ('nmID'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool wb_cards_recover_from_trash, which performs the reverse operation.

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 such as wb_cards_trash for viewing trashed cards or wb_cards_recover_from_trash for restoring them. There is no stated context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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