kaiten_remove_card_child

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description usefully narrows that destructiveness by stating both cards survive the unlink, and it discloses the return value as the confirmed ID, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the ID-format caveat and the return value. No redundant phrasing and nothing wasted.

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 mutation tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, which ID to pass, and what comes back. Only the parent_card_id's meaning is left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that child_card_id must be a card ID rather than a relationship ID, which is real disambiguation, but parent_card_id is never explained and no format or validation detail is added.

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 and resource: "Unlink child_card_id from parent_card_id." It immediately clarifies the operation is a relationship removal, not a card deletion, which cleanly separates it from kaiten_delete_card and kaiten_add_card_child.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation semantics and the caveat about which ID to supply, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-an-alternative guidance (e.g., how this relates to kaiten_list_card_children or kaiten_add_card_child). An agent can infer intent, but nothing states prerequisites or the reverse operation.

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