Remove Intent Card

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that — the only extra signal is the possessive 'your', hinting at an ownership requirement. It does not say whether the removal is permanent or soft, or what happens to data linked to the card.

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 short sentences, action stated first and the trigger condition second. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 destructive, one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is minimum viable: annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile, so the omissions are about consequences rather than safety. It leaves unanswered whether removal is reversible, whether the card ID can be reused, and what happens to intents or matches referencing the card.

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?

There is a single parameter, card_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, provenance, or lookup guidance for the ID, which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove your IntentCard from the Intent Network.' That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_intent or evaluate_intent. It stops short of explicitly naming the counterpart tool an agent should consider, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Use when your needs or offers have changed' gives a trigger condition, but no when-not guidance and no alternatives (e.g., whether to create_intent a replacement first, or whether an existing card should be modified instead). Usage is implied by the change-of-circumstances wording rather than fully routed.

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