kaiten_remove_card_subscriber

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 states the core mutation action but does not disclose whether removal is idempotent, what happens if the user is not a subscriber, whether permission is required, or whether the operation is reversible via kaiten_add_card_subscriber. No information is provided beyond what the tool name already implies, and 'Remove' itself is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The 'watcher' synonym earns its place by clarifying terminology. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter operation, though it could have used the same brevity to add an idempotency or alternative-tool note.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but not complete. It omits the relationship to sibling tools (add/list card subscribers) and any error or idempotency behavior, which an agent would need to reason about side effects. Adequate for a trivial remove operation, but no more.

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% — both card_id ('Card ID') and user_id ('User ID to unsubscribe') are already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mapping the noun 'subscriber' to the user_id parameter, but it does not add format, constraint, or relationship details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('a subscriber (watcher) from a Kaiten card'). The parenthetical 'watcher' disambiguates the domain terminology, and the action is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like kaiten_add_card_subscriber and kaiten_list_card_subscribers. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not reference the obvious sibling pairs kaiten_add_card_subscriber or kaiten_list_card_subscribers, nor does it state conditions such as what happens if the user is not currently subscribed. The usage context must be entirely inferred from the tool name, which is a narrow miss given the large sibling list.

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