delete_card

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it delivers: it flags the operation as permanent and irreversible, the single most critical behavioral trait for a destructive tool, and adds a ⚠️ visual danger cue. There is no contradiction with any annotation.

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 short sentences, both earning their place: the irreversible-danger warning is front-loaded first, and the mitigation advice (archive first) second. The emoji adds a quick visual signal without bulk; zero wasted words.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential picture: what it does, that it is irreversible, and the safer sibling. Minor gaps remain — preconditions like board-close permissions, cascade effects on card content, and the response shape are unmentioned — but none are critical for correct invocation.

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% — cardId is already documented with its type and 24-character constraint. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — 'SUPPRIME DÉFINITIVEMENT une carte Trello' (permanently deletes a Trello card) — and the (IRRÉVERSIBLE) marker distinguishes it from softer siblings like archive_card. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does and why it differs from alternatives.

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?

'Recommandation: archivez d'abord avec archive_card' explicitly names the alternative tool and directs the agent toward the safer default, implying delete is only for cases where permanent removal is intended. This is direct when-to-use routing with an explicit sibling reference.

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