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 effectively communicates the irreversible nature of the operation ('Permanently delete... Cannot be undone'), which is crucial for a destructive tool. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., what happens to associated data) or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the core action, the second provides critical usage guidance. There is zero wasted language, and the most important information (permanent deletion) is front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by emphasizing irreversibility and providing alternative guidance. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what 'permanently delete' entails (e.g., removal from all views, data cleanup) or potential error cases, though the concise approach is generally effective.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'card_id' fully documented as a 'Full 36-char UUID.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a card'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive_card. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance by stating 'use archive_card if reversibility needed,' directly naming an alternative sibling tool. This gives clear context for choosing between destructive and non-destructive options.

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