card_discard

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

The description fully discloses irreversibility, SCA requirements, default polling behavior (wait=30s), fallback to structured pending response, and continuation via sca_session_show and sca_session_token. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and meets it thoroughly.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The first states purpose and key constraint (irreversible), the second covers SCA behavior. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the essential SCA flow and irreversibility. It lacks details on the normal success response or error scenarios, but for an SCA-sensitive operation, it provides sufficient context for an agent to proceed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for any parameter (id, wait, sca_session_token). It implicitly refers to SCA-related params but provides no additional semantics.

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 action 'Discard a card (irreversible)', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like card_lock, card_report_lost, etc., which handle different card states.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like card_lock or card_report_lost. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for choosing this tool over others.

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