planka_remove_card_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action without revealing side effects (e.g., whether it's destructive to the card, idempotency, permission requirements, or error behavior). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It clearly states the action and lists the required parameters. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, lacking essential behavioral and contextual details. The structure is efficient, but the content is sparse.

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 mutation with two required parameters, the description covers the basic operation and parameter identification. However, with no annotations or output schema, it omits behavioral details like whether labels are removed individually or all at once, any prerequisites, and expected outcomes. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 compensate. It mentions 'cardId + labelIds: [string]' but this merely restates the parameter names and types already visible in the schema. It does not explain what a labelId refers to, how to obtain valid IDs, or any constraints. The description adds minimal value 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 clearly states the action: 'Remove labels from a card.' It specifies the verb (remove), the resource (labels from a card), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like planka_add_card_labels and planka_delete_card. The purpose is unambiguous and easily matched to the agent's intent.

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 implies when to use it (when labels need to be removed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over planka_add_card_labels or other card mutations. Usage context is inferred rather than stated, so it meets the 'implied usage' bar but not higher.

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