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 behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, which is the most critical behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention side effects on associated resources (comments, attachments, checklists) or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the critical warning and the alternative tool. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, permanence, and the alternative. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't mention what the caller can expect in response or any prerequisites, but these are minor gaps for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the cardId parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('Trello card'), and clarifies that it is permanent. It explicitly differentiates itself from archive_card, which is a sibling tool, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool for permanent deletion, and use archive_card when reversible removal is needed. This directly names the alternative and the condition for choosing it, so no inference is required.

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