planka_delete_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose the most critical trait: the delete is permanent and cannot be undone. This is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool; it stops short of describing cascading effects or response shape.

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 with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Permanently delete a card') and the irreversibility warning 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?

For a one-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema the description still leaves unspecified whether deleting a card also deletes its tasks/comments and what the caller can expect in the response. The irreversibility warning mitigates but does not fully close this gap.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines cardId as 'the card ID to delete.' The description adds no extra semantic detail, but none is necessary at this complexity.

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 names a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('card') and adds the permanence qualifier, so an agent can distinguish it from get_card, update_card, move_card, and create_card. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 intended use is implied: choose this when a card should be permanently removed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, and it gives no preconditions beyond selecting a cardId.

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