kaiten_remove_card_parent

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the removal action and does not mention side effects, idempotency, error behavior, permissions, or whether the parent card object itself is deleted or merely unlinked.

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 with no filler. It states the action and target resource efficiently, earning its place while staying appropriately short.

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 mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not indicate what a successful response looks like, what errors to expect, or whether the operation requires preconditions such as the parent link already existing.

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%, with both parameters clearly described as the child card and the parent to remove. The description adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('parent card from a given card'), which conveys the operation. It is distinguishable from related siblings like kaiten_remove_card_child or kaiten_add_card_parent, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when this tool should be used instead of related tools, such as kaiten_remove_card_child or kaiten_list_card_parents. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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