kaiten_remove_card_child

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Remove a child card,' which does not clarify whether this unlinks the child, deletes the child card, or what side effects occur. It also does not mention permissions, reversibility, or the response after removal, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation-like operation.

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, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 relationship operation, the schema covers the inputs well, and no output schema exists to explain. However, the description does not clarify the operational semantics of 'remove' (unlink vs. delete) or provide any usage context, so an agent may not fully understand the consequence of invoking it. The definition is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain that card_id is the parent and child_id is the child to remove. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond restating the relationship. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource/relationship ('a child card from a given card'), so an agent can understand the core action. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tools like kaiten_add_card_child or kaiten_remove_card_parent, but the direction of the relationship is clear enough to distinguish it from its inverse.

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 implied by the wording: call this when a child card needs to be removed from a parent card. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as kaiten_remove_card_parent for removing a parent relationship. The context is clear but the burden is on the agent to infer it.

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