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 behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly warns that deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, has no trash recovery, removes every card generated from the notes, and that deleting a cloze note removes all its generated cards. This is exemplary disclosure 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?

The description is appropriately sized for a destructive tool and front-loads the most important fact: permanent deletion. Every sentence adds relevant guidance. It is slightly redundant between 'cannot be undone' and 'notes and every card generated from them are gone,' but the repetition serves to emphasize severity, so it remains effective.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the safety warning, the prerequisite find-cards workflow, explicit ID requirements, the confirm acknowledgement, and the cloze-note cascade behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains that noteIds must come from find-cards, that there is no delete-by-query, and that IDs must be listed explicitly. It also reinforces the confirm parameter's purpose by tying it to user-requested deletion and permanence.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'PERMANENTLY deletes notes.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the create/update/find siblings by focusing exclusively on deletion, and it adds the critical 'permanent' qualifier that defines the tool's scope.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only delete notes the user has asked to delete. It also provides a required workflow: use find-cards first to obtain note IDs and confirm the right notes, and states that there is no delete-by-query and IDs must be listed explicitly. This fully routes the agent away from misuse.

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