trello_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a card' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, requires permissions, has side effects (e.g., on comments or attachments), or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with 'Delete a card'—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in 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?

Given the complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permanence, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe tool invocation. This is inadequate for a mutation tool in this context.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With schema description coverage at 100% (card_id is documented as 'The ID of the card'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like format examples or constraints.

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 'Delete a card' states the action (delete) and resource (card), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'trello_delete_board' or specify what type of card (e.g., Trello card vs. other card types), making it somewhat vague rather than specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing card_id), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'trello_archive_list' or 'trello_update_card' for different operations on cards, leaving usage unclear.

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