kaiten_remove_card_memberRemoves a specified user from a Kaiten card's participants by card ID and user ID, so you can update card membership when someone should no longer be assigned or involved.
Удаляет пользователя из участников карточки.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_id | Yes | ID карточки | |
| user_id | Yes | ID пользователя |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it does not say whether the removal requires ownership/admin rights on the card, whether it is reversible, whether the user is notified, or whether a non-member produces an error. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap; only the bare mutation intent is conveyed.
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 sentence with no waste, and the action is front-loaded. It is tight rather than padded, though the minimalism shades into under-specification rather than economy.
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?
A two-parameter destructive membership operation with no annotations and no output schema should say more: post-conditions, error behavior if the user is absent, and whether the card must be open/unarchived. The one-line description leaves the agent without the context needed to call it confidently in edge cases.
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 ('ID карточки') and user_id ('ID пользователя') are documented in the schema. The description maps semantically onto those two parameters but adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond them, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Удаляет' / removes) and a precise resource ('пользователя из участников карточки' – a user from the card's members). The action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like kaiten_add_card_member or kaiten_remove_card_tag, though the description itself never names 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 indication of when to use this versus kaiten_add_card_member or other membership-related operations, no prerequisites, and no note about what happens if the user is not currently a member. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.