kaiten_delete_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states this is a soft-delete rather than a destructive delete, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It also discloses the time log restriction. It does not mention response behavior or reversibility, but the disclosed behavior exceeds the minimum.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the critical constraint is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter delete operation with complete schema coverage, the description provides the core behavior and the key edge-case restriction. It does not describe the response format or restoration path, but these are not essential for a simple, well-scoped delete tool.

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 already fully describes card_id as 'Card ID or key' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Soft-delete') and resource ('Kaiten card'), and clarifies that this is not a permanent/hard delete by noting the condition is set to deleted. This clearly separates it from related card operations like archive_card or remove_card_child.

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 the intended use: to soft-delete a card. It also provides a clear when-not condition ('Cards with time logs cannot be deleted'). However, it does not name alternatives or explain what to do when the card has time logs, so the guidance is incomplete.

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