remove_card_from_dashboard

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 does disclose the key non-destructive trait (the card remains intact), but it does not specify other behaviors such as whether the removal is permanent or reversible, or how the dashboard layout is affected. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 that conveys the essential action and an important caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the operation and a key behavioral nuance. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but these are not necessary given the tool's simplicity and the schema's clarity.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for both parameters (dashcard_id and dashboard_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional context about these parameters, so the schema's baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's function: removing a dashcard from a dashboard. It adds the important qualifier 'the card itself remains intact,' which distinguishes it from delete or move operations and directly addresses potential confusion with sibling tools like copy_card or move_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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you want to remove a dashcard but keep the underlying card), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison to sibling tools like delete_card or add_card_to_dashboard, leaving room for ambiguity.

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