kaiten_delete_card_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful restriction: files on blocked cards cannot be deleted. It does not disclose other behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or response behavior, but the destructive nature is self-evident from the verb.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable constraint about blocked cards. Every word 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 simple 2-parameter deletion tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It states the operation and an important failure condition. It could mention irreversibility or permission requirements, but the low complexity makes the current level adequate.

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%, and both parameters are adequately described as 'Card ID.' and 'File ID.' The tool description does not add additional semantic context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the verb ('Delete'), the resource ('a file attachment from a card'), and is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like kaiten_delete_document. It precisely describes what operation is performed.

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 when to use the tool — to remove a file attachment from a card — and explicitly warns that files on blocked cards cannot be deleted. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when to choose this tool over other deletion tools.

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