Delete Card Builder card

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the empty-payload success behavior of the WebSocket handler, the downstream consequence for dashboards referencing the card_id via custom:card-builder-renderer-card, and that no reference cleanup is performed.

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?

Front-loads the destructive consequence in the first sentence, then structures the rest as 'Use when'/'Returns'/'Errors' labels. Slightly long, and the Returns/Errors detail partly duplicates the output schema, but every sentence carries real information.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still pre-empts the two questions an agent would have for a destructive one-param tool: what happens to referencing dashboards, and how failures surface. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single required card_id, whose schema description already points at card_builder_list_cards as the source. The description restates 'by id' without adding format or retrieval detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (permanently delete), resource (one Card Builder card), and scope (by id), and names the underlying `card_builder/cards/delete` call. An agent can distinguish this from card_builder_list_cards, card_builder_get_card, card_builder_update_card, and the delete_style_preset/delete_media siblings without opening a schema.

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 an explicit use condition: 'Use when: removing a card that is no longer used on any dashboard,' which also implies when not to use it (a card still referenced). No alternative tool is named, but for a deletion operation there is no plausible alternative to route to, so the gap is minor.

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