kaiten_remove_planned_relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the destructive nature of the operation ('Remove') and the exact effect: unlinking two cards as predecessor and successor. It does not disclose potential irreversibility, permissions, or what happens if the relation does not exist, but for a simple link removal this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action and object appear first, followed by the one clarifying detail that matters most for correct invocation. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant 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?

The description gives enough information to identify the tool and parameters correctly, but it omits details about return behavior, error cases, and any side effects. Given this is a mutating operation with no annotations or output schema, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds a useful restatement of the directional relationship (card_id = predecessor, target_card_id = successor), but it does not provide significantly new information beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Remove a planned relation') and identifies the exact resource and the roles of both card IDs. It clearly distinguishes this from related operations like add or update planned relation by focusing on removal.

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 the tool: when a planned predecessor/successor link should be removed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, such as preferring update_planned_relation when the relation should be modified rather than removed.

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