Delete decks

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses exactly what gets destroyed (every card when cardsToo=true), that it is irreversible through this API, the version-dependent cardsToo requirement, and the null return on success. That is precisely the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded and the destructive warning immediately after. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, danger, irreversibility, version constraints, user confirmation, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the destructive consequence of cardsToo=true and the important constraint that recent versions require it. That goes materially beyond the schema's one-line "true deletes the cards in those decks as well."

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Deletes decks by name") and immediately clarifies scope via the cardsToo warning, so it is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like deck_names, get_decks, and change_deck. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives concrete call-time guidance: confirm with the user first, and note that recent AnkiConnect versions require cardsToo=true and refuse otherwise. It does not discuss alternatives or non-deletion paths, but none of the listed siblings offer a safer substitute, so the practical guidance is essentially complete.

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