delete_card

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: type resolution, child-card deletion semantics, and the returned report of deleted items plus before/after parent state and efforts. This is critical for a destructive operation and goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 sentences, front-loads the core action, and packs necessary nuance without fluff. Every sentence adds operational value.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the destructive behavior, the condition for child cards, and what the response will report, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 only 50%, so the description carries extra weight. It adds semantic context for withChildren (child-card deletion) and clarifies that id alone is sufficient because the type is resolved. It does not elaborate on id format, but the schema already covers that precisely.

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 identifies the operation as deleting a card, with the specific nuance that the card type is resolved automatically. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_relation, delete_entity, and delete_bulk, which operate on other resource types or bulk scopes.

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?

It gives clear context on when withChildren must be included, enumerating child-card scenarios and explaining the deletion rule. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-card deletions, but for its intended use it provides sufficient guidance.

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