remove_issues_from_project

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

With no annotations, the description is the only safety signal. It discloses that issues survive, but it does not state that membership/card data is removed, whether the operation is reversible, what authorization is required, or how the target project board is identified given the schema lacks a project-board parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the essential action, and no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, this description is too thin. It omits how the target board is selected, return behavior, and failure modes, leaving an agent to guess on critical details.

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% and the description only explains issue_numbers implicitly ('by number'). It does not add meaning to owner or repo, and it introduces an ambiguity about which project board is affected because the schema has no project board ID parameter.

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 action (remove), the resource (issues by number from a project board), and scopes it to 'any project board'. It also distinguishes itself from delete_issue by asserting the issues themselves survive, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 the goal is to detach issues from a project board without deleting them. It does not name sibling tools like delete_issue or add_issues_to_project, and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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