Remove an IntentCard from the Intent Network by providing its card ID when your needs or offers change.
Remove your IntentCard from the Intent Network. Use when your needs or offers have changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_id | Yes | Card ID to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits itself. It indicates the action is scoped to 'your' card and operates within the Intent Network, but it does not disclose whether the removal is reversible, triggers side effects, or requires special permissions. This leaves some gaps but is not misleading.
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 concise sentence that states the action and the usage condition. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the purpose.
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 removal tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the what and when. It might mention potential effects (e.g., if removal invalidates related data), but given the tool's simplicity, the information provided is mostly complete.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter card_id, with a clear description 'Card ID to remove'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics 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 states the tool removes the user's IntentCard from the Intent Network. The verb 'Remove' and resource 'IntentCard' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_intent and evaluate_intent.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use when your needs or offers have changed'), giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the full exclusions found in a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.