Delete Step

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds value by clarifying the deletion is permanent and irreversible. It also scopes the destructive behavior to 'a to-do step from a card,' which is useful beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction exists.

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 extremely efficient: one sentence states the purpose, and one short sentence delivers a high-signal irreversible warning. Every word earns its place and the destructive caveat is front-loaded enough to be noticed.

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?

All required parameters are documented in the schema, the destructive/irreversible nature is explicit, and the object being deleted is clearly identified. It doesn't describe the success response or post-conditions, but for a simple delete operation with no output schema that is a minor gap rather than a functional deficiency.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the three required parameters are fully documented there. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but that is acceptable because the schema already carries the full semantic burden, giving the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific action, 'permanently delete', and a specific resource, 'a to-do step from a card'. It clearly distinguishes this from update_step, create_step, and other delete tools for different objects, and the 'cannot be undone' phrasing prevents confusion with soft-close or archive operations.

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 communicates that this tool is for permanent step removal, and the explicit destructive warning gives strong context for when it should be used cautiously. It doesn't name alternatives such as update_step for non-destructive changes, so it misses the explicit when-not/when-else guidance that would merit a 5.

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