card_builder_delete_card

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

The description mentions the return payload ('empty payload on success'), which is helpful. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not discuss side effects, reversibility, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise with two short sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the key action. Every word serves a purpose.

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 deletion tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on parameter semantics and potential error states. It covers the basic purpose and return value but not the complete context.

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 0%, and the description only says 'by id' without explaining the format, origin, or validation of the card_id parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 action (delete) and the resource (a card by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, and get cards, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 for deletion when a card_id is known, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or disable). No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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