Delete a card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole behavioral burden and does real work: it names the FK cascade targets (checklists, comments, attachment rows), notes files persist on disk until a GC sweep, and warns that nothing is restorable from the UI. It omits permission/auth requirements and behavior when the id doesn't exist, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, then scope of cascade, then irreversibility. No filler and each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: what gets destroyed, what survives, and that recovery is impossible. Only the meaning of `id` and failure modes remain uncovered.

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 coverage is 0% and the single `id` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description; the agent must infer from the tool name that it is a card ID rather than, say, a board or list ID. The rest of the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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?

'Permanently delete a card' gives a specific verb and resource, and the word 'Permanently' implicitly contrasts with the sibling kanbini_archive_card. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so the delete-vs-archive distinction must still be inferred.

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?

'Confirm intent before calling' is a caution, not a routing rule. It never states when to choose this over kanbini_archive_card, nor what state the card must be in for deletion to succeed; usage is implied rather than specified.

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