delete-cards

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

Without annotations, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: permanent deletion, strict exact matching, and GM-only permission requirement. It covers the key aspects of how the tool behaves, though it could mention if deletion is reversible or affects related data.

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 a single sentence conveying all essential information: action, resource, matching constraint, and permission requirement. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the necessary context: what it does, how to use it (exact match), and who can use it (GM). It could mention if it only deletes stacks, not individual cards, but 'Cards stacks' implies that.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description. The description adds 'STRICT resolution' which reinforces the schema's 'exact' qualifier, but provides little additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool permanently deletes Cards stacks by exact id or exact name. It specifies the resource ('Cards stacks') and the action ('permanently delete'), distinguishing it from other delete tools like delete-folder or delete-actor. The mention of 'GM-only' adds an important constraint.

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 clear guidelines: use exact ids or names, no fuzzy/substring matching, and the tool is GM-only. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over other deletion tools or alternatives like list-cards to find exact names.

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