remove-issue-from-module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a removal action but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a destructive deletion or a reversible disassociation, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., affecting linked data), or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success/failure indicators, error conditions), side effects, or usage context relative to siblings. Given the complexity of issue-module relationships, more guidance is needed for effective agent use.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema (project_id, module_id, issue_id). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target ('an issue from a module'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove-issue-from-cycle' or 'delete-module', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough to infer its scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-issue' or 'remove-issue-from-cycle'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the issue must already be in the module, or what happens to the issue after removal (e.g., deletion vs. disassociation).

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