delete_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious implementation behavior — that the column is resolved automatically, so no columnId is needed — but omits the critical traits for a delete: irreversibility, undo, cascading effects, and required auth.

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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded before the supplementary scoping detail. Nothing needs to be cut.

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?

Parameters are fully covered and there is no output schema to explain, but a destructive tool with zero annotations and no description of irreversibility or error behavior falls short of what an agent needs before invoking it.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (boardId, cardId) are self-documented. The description adds no per-parameter detail, but the auto-column note implicitly explains why no column parameter is required — a minor value-add over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a card") that is unambiguous and matches the tool name. The second clause adds scope (auto-locates the containing column), but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like update_card or move_card beyond the obvious verb.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no alternatives offered (e.g., archive vs delete). The agent must infer that this is the destructive path from the verb alone.

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