kaiten_remove_card_member

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 safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the removed user loses access immediately, whether the operation is recoverable, or whether it requires admin rights on the 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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with two undocumented parameters and 0% schema coverage, yet the description is one clause long. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the missing parameter sourcing, prerequisites, and irreversibility note leave real gaps for a delete-style tool.

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 the burden for both parameters. It mentions member_id only in passing ('using its member_id') and never explains card_id, where a member_id comes from (e.g., kaiten_list_card_members or kaiten_list_users), or ID constraints beyond the schema's positive-integer rule.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a membership from a card'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling 'kaiten_add_card_member'. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of 'kaiten_add_card_member' or 'kaiten_update_card_member_role', no prerequisites, and no statement about what happens to the underlying user or card. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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