kaiten_remove_project_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'remove' and does not specify whether the card is permanently deleted, just unlinked from the project, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and object clearly and is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

Although the parameters are fully documented, the description is too thin for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not clarify the practical effects of removal, how this differs from deleting a card, or what happens after the operation, so an agent lacks important context for confident invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, documenting both card_id and project_id clearly. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 card from a Kaiten project') with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from kaiten_delete_card or kaiten_archive_card, so an agent could confuse removing a card from a project with deleting or archiving the card itself.

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 such as kaiten_delete_card, kaiten_remove_card_child, or kaiten_archive_card. There is also no mention of prerequisites or context needed before removing a card from a project.

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