lemma_delete_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is permanent, destructive, write-only, idempotent, and gated on user approval. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a delete tool, though it does not cover failure/error behavior or what happens on repeat calls to an already-deleted card.

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 tightly packed with useful facts: WRITE, PERMANENTLY, card cancellation, idempotency, and approval requirement. Every clause adds information and the most critical constraint 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 simple two-parameter delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirements: irreversibility, idempotency, written nature, and user approval. A minor gap is not describing the response or success outcome, but that is not necessary for calling the tool correctly.

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 only 50% because card_id has no schema description. The description compensates by identifying the target as 'a real card' and requiring 'explicit user approval,' which maps naturally to card_id and confirm. It could explicitly say 'set confirm=true,' but the meaning is sufficiently recoverable.

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 specific verb and resource: 'PERMANENTLY cancels a real card so it can no longer be used.' It clearly marks the operation as WRITE, which distinguishes it from read-focused siblings like lemma_get_card and lemma_get_card_iframe, and from lemma_create_card which creates rather than deletes.

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 provides clear operational context: this is a write/destructive action, it is idempotent so no idempotency key is needed, and it requires explicit user approval before every call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is strong and unambiguous.

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