delete_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a card' without mentioning whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects other boards (the 'everywhere' flag), or what happens to associated data like comments or attachments. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary verbiage. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though that is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.

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?

Despite having output schema (content unknown) and full parameter coverage, the description fails to explain the operational context: irreversible deletion, potential cross-board impact via 'everywhere', or any side effects. For a destructive tool with no annotations, this is inadequate. An agent would need to infer critical safety information from the schema or external docs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters ('card', 'board', 'everywhere') with clear meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema info.

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 states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('a card'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling card tools like 'update_card' or 'move_card', but the action is distinct enough that a capable agent can infer it. However, it lacks detail on whether deletion is permanent or moves to trash, which prevents a top score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the need for a current board context. It does not explain the 'everywhere' flag or caution about irreversibility, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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