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 highlights irreversibility and advises user confirmation, which are critical for a destructive action. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., related data like comments or attachments), required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This is a minimal but valuable disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the action ('Delete a card by ID') and immediately convey the critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. This is an ideal length for a simple, single-parameter destructive 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the action and irreversibility but does not mention expected return value or error behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should arguably explain what the client receives, but for a delete operation this may be implied (e.g., success/failure). It is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with the parameter card_id fully described as 'Card ID to delete (irreversible)'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identification method (by ID). This is specific and distinct from sibling delete tools (delete_comment, delete_board, etc.) which operate on different resources. 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 gives a safety guideline ('confirm with the user first') but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since the resource is clearly a card and siblings are for other resources, the intended usage is implied but not directly contrasted. The warning adds useful operational guidance, but it lacks explicit alternative routing.

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