planka_delete_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning that deletion is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or may cascade effects. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the consequences.

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 very concise—a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it could benefit from additional context without losing efficiency.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention irreversibility, error conditions, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 only parameter, card_id, is described in the input schema itself. The tool description adds no further meaning, but since the schema already defines its purpose, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate despite 0% schema description coverage indicated in context.

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 'Delete a card from Planka' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (card), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like planka_remove_card_label, which also remove something from a card, but the distinct action is clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as planka_update_card or planka_find_and_get_card. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or conditions for safe usage.

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