Stop a card waiting on another

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses idempotency ('Removing a link that doesn't exist does nothing') and the absence of other side effects ('Neither card changes otherwise'). It stops short of stating required permissions or error behavior for invalid card IDs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the parameter roles, then the two behavioral caveats. No filler.

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 two-parameter unlink operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, directionality, idempotency and side effects — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps are return value and ID-type expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, which it does by explaining the semantic relationship between the two params (cardId is the dependent, blockerId is the blocker). It does not say whether IDs are card IDs vs. link IDs or what an unknown ID does.

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 ('Remove the link') and resource ('card cardId wait on card blockerId'), making the direction of the dependency explicit. It is clearly the inverse of kanbini_add_blocker, though it never names that sibling when routing the agent.

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 rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this to unblock a card, and the idempotency note reassures that a redundant call is harmless. There is no explicit when-to-use clause or reference to kanbini_add_blocker / kanbini_get_card to verify the link first.

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