Remove Member from Card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core operation but does not mention potential side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, permission requirements, or what happens if the member is not currently assigned. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and direct object, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the basic invocation is covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail, leaving gaps about when to choose this tool over siblings and what side effects or responses to expect.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description 'Unassign a member from a card' adds no extra parameter-level meaning; it simply restates the action in terms of the card and member IDs.

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 'Unassign a member from a card' uses a specific verb (unassign) and clearly identifies the resource (member) and context (card). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_member_to_card and remove_board_member by explicitly stating the scope is a card.

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 action itself: an agent should use this tool when it wants to unassign a member from a card. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any mention of alternatives such as add_member_to_card or remove_board_member. The context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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