remove_card_due_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does clearly state the core mutating effect: the card's due date is removed. But it adds no context about permissions, reversibility, idempotency, or what happens if the card has no due date, which would make the behavior more transparent.

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 no filler. It states the action and the target resource immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter, atomic mutation with no output schema, the description and schema together provide enough information to call the tool correctly. It could be more complete by mentioning idempotency or no-op behavior, but that is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cardId as a 24-character string. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline but does not improve on 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 uses a precise verb ('Retire') and a clear resource ('la date limite d'une carte Trello'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also semantically distinguishes itself from siblings like set_card_due_date and mark_due_date_complete: this tool removes the due date entirely rather than setting or completing it.

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 intended use is clearly implied: call this when the card's due date should be removed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over set_card_due_date or mark_due_date_complete, nor about edge cases such as calling it on a card that has no due date.

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