Release Card Blocker

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

Reveals critical behavior beyond the annotations: DELETE is used under the hood but is non-destructive (flips released:true / released_by_id, preserves history), the blocker continues to appear in list results, preflight verifies ownership, and no hard-delete path exists. This enriches destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true without contradicting them.

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?

Seven sentences, all load-bearing. The purpose is front-loaded, the surprising DELETE semantics come second, and the operational details (listing behavior, filtering, preflight, ID source) follow in logical order. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

Thorough for a 2-param mutation with no output schema. Covers the operation's surprising semantics, post-conditions, ID provenance, a likely error path (preflight ownership check), and the absence of a hard-delete alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% — both cardId and blockerId already carry descriptions naming their source endpoints (kaiten_search_cards, kaiten_list_card_blockers). The description adds little beyond the schema, though the preflight ownership check is a useful hint about a likely error condition. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Release') and resource ('blocker on a card'). The description goes beyond the title by clarifying the non-delete semantics — it flips released:true rather than removing the row — which disambiguates it from what an agent might expect from DELETE-under-the-hood, and from the kaiten_delete_card / kaiten_remove_* sibling family. The purpose 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?

Provides clear workflow context: blockerId comes from kaiten_list_card_blockers, released blockers still appear in that list and must be filtered client-side via the released field, and no hard-delete API exists so the agent should not search for one. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the kaiten_update_card_blocker sibling or states when to prefer this over it.

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