card_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it discloses the two most important traits — irreversibility ('permanently') and the safer alternative. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether deleting a card also removes its attachments, comments or checklists, which matter for a destructive operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the precondition and followed by the alternative; no filler. It could name card_archive literally rather than just 'archive', but 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the decision that matters (delete vs archive) and the irreversibility. Missing only secondary details such as permission requirements and cascade effects of deleting a card.

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 single parameter cardId has 100% schema description coverage (id, short link, or URL), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('permanently delete a Trello card') and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling alternative ('archive instead for reversible removal'). An agent can distinguish card_delete from card_archive without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only when the user explicitly asks to permanently delete') and names the preferred alternative for the reversible case. This is a complete when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule in one sentence.

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