remove_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey side effects. It mentions 'remove' (implying destructive action) and includes a 'dry_run' parameter and a 'backup_id' in returns, which add transparency. However, it does not explicitly state irreversibility, permissions, or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 starts with a concise one-sentence purpose, followed by a structured Args and Returns section. It is appropriately sized, though the Args list is somewhat lengthy; however, the structure is clear and front-loaded with the primary function.

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 tool of this complexity, the description is complete: it covers the action, parameters, and returns, and includes necessary edge-case details like 'Required for sections views'. It does not delve into broader dashboard context, but that is not essential for usage.

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 lists parameters without descriptions, but the description's Args section explains each parameter in detail (e.g., 'url_path: Dashboard URL path, or None for the default dashboard'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, covering all five parameters with meaningful context.

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 tool's function: removing a card from a dashboard view. The verb 'remove' is specific and the resource 'card' is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_card or move_card.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints at parameter usage (e.g., 'section required for sections views') but does not compare with other tools or give selection criteria, leaving the decision to the agent.

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