delete_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the deck and all cards are deleted, which is a destructive cascade – a critical piece of information. However, it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent or if there is any kind of confirmation or restore mechanism, but the core destructive behavior is transparent.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the identifier options. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description is incomplete for a destructive tool with three optional parameters. It fails to explain output_file, the cardinality requirement (one of deck_id/deck_name), and any potential error conditions or restrictions. An agent lacks sufficient information to call this tool safely and correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions 'by deck ID or deck name' but does not clarify that exactly one should be provided, nor does it address the output_file parameter at all. The purpose of output_file is completely unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 the specific action 'Delete' on the resource 'deck' and explicitly notes the cascade to 'all cards contained within it.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rename_deck or export_deck by indicating removal rather than modification or export.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_notes or suspend_cards. It does not mention any conditions, such as whether the deck must be empty or if deletion is appropriate versus temporary suspension. No preconditions or exclusions are provided.

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