delete_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the default soft-delete behavior, the requirement for typed confirmation, and implies irreversibility for permanent deletion via the parameter description. However, it does not cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and default behavior, followed by a key requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the action, default behavior, and a key requirement. However, it lacks details on what 'soft-delete' entails (e.g., recovery options) and does not mention the response format or error handling.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain the format of 'cardId' or the implications of 'permanent'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a card'), and specifies the default behavior ('soft-delete by default'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_deck' (different resource) and 'get_card' (different action).

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 implies usage when deleting a card, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_deck' or 'get_card' (for checking before deletion). It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires typed confirmation') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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