Remove Card Tag

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

The WARNING discloses a critical behavioral quirk — Kaiten returns success even when tagId does not belong to the card or does not exist — which goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false). It also prescribes a verification step, giving the agent actionable knowledge that structured fields alone cannot convey. No contradiction with 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 sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, followed by the critical warning and verification instruction, then parameter sourcing. Every sentence earns its place and the most important operational trap is placed prominently.

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 mutation, the description covers the primary hazard (false success), the mitigation (verification via kaiten_list_card_tags), and parameter sourcing. There is no output schema, and while the warning implicitly addresses response trustworthiness, error conditions and response shape are not described — a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% with only minimal 'Tag ID'/'Card ID' descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by specifying that tagId must come from kaiten_list_card_tags or kaiten_add_tag, and by warning that a syntactically valid tagId may not actually be attached to the card — clarifying parameter provenance and validity beyond the schema.

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 'Remove a tag from a card,' a specific verb+resource statement that unambiguously identifies the operation. It is clearly distinguishable from tag-related siblings like kaiten_add_tag and kaiten_list_card_tags without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 concrete usage guidance: verify via kaiten_list_card_tags before trusting the success message, and source tagId from kaiten_list_card_tags or kaiten_add_tag. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use this tool versus alternatives, but the verification workflow effectively tells the agent how and when to safely invoke it.

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