Удалить карточку

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the deletion is irreversible. It says nothing about required permissions, whether attached comments/checklists/time logs are cascaded or orphaned, or whether any confirmation step exists — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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, both front-loaded: the action first, the irreversibility warning second. Nothing is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema (nothing to return) and no annotations, the description covers the essentials but omits the cascade/permission consequences an agent needs before committing to an irreversible write.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'card_id' fully. The description's 'по ID' merely restates it with no added format, source, or retrieval hints, making baseline 3 correct.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('Удаляет карточку') with the lookup key ('по ID') stated, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the far more common sibling alternative kaiten_archive_card, which is the nearest ambiguity in this toolset.

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?

'используйте осознанно' is a caution, not usage guidance — it does not tell the agent when to prefer this over kaiten_archive_card, kaiten_update_card, or member/tag removal. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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