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 does disclose the critical trait that deletion is irreversible, which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects on related data, required permissions, or what the response looks like.

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, short sentence with the action verb first. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 deletion tool, the description covers the essential fact of irreversibility, which is important. However, it lacks details about what happens to associated data (if any), whether confirmation is needed, and what the return value is. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more contextual detail would improve completeness.

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 shows one required parameter, card_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what card_id means or provide any format details, relying entirely on the parameter name being self-explanatory. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action 'Loescht' (deletes) and the resource 'Karte' (card), making it unambiguous that this tool is for deleting cards. The additional 'unwiderruflich' (irreversibly) adds a key characteristic, and it distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools like delete_entry or delete_column.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer that it is used when a card needs to be removed.

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