planka_delete_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'Delete'. It does not disclose that deletion is likely irreversible, whether related data (labels, tasks) is cascaded or cleaned up, or any permission requirements. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word earns its place. The structure cannot be improved without adding content, which belongs to other dimensions.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it omits irreversibility, cascade effects, and failure behavior. Although the tool is simple (one parameter), an agent gets barely enough information to invoke it safely.

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 adds only 'by id', which clarifies that the single string parameter identifies the card to delete. This is a modest contribution beyond the bare schema, though the parameter name 'id' combined with the tool name makes its role nearly self-evident.

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 ('card') with the targeting mechanism ('by id'), making the purpose unambiguous next to read/list/update/create siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the delete+card combination is clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as planka_update_card or planka_remove_card_labels, nor any prerequisites like the card existing or consequences of deleting it. The usage context is purely implied by the verb; nothing is stated explicitly.

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