Delete card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose the permanent nature of the deletion, which is critical behavioral information. However, it omits other important traits such as side effects (e.g., deleting attachments), permission requirements, or rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 sentence of 8 words, front-loading the essential action and consequence. Every word is necessary, with no filler or redundancy. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (two required IDs, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys the core operation and its permanent nature. It could mention success/failure responses or error cases, but for a deletion tool, the completeness is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description must compensate. The tool name and description ('delete a card from a board') hint at the purpose of 'cardId' and 'boardId', but provide no additional semantic details such as format, constraints, or relationships, which is insufficient for a 2-parameter 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 clearly states the verb ('delete'), the resource ('card'), and the scope ('from a board'), with the additional qualifier 'Permanently'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings like 'create_cards' or 'update_card', as deletion is a distinct operation.

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?

While the tool name and description make it obvious that this is for deleting cards, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as archiving, or prerequisites like requiring the card to exist. The usage context is implied but not fully specified.

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