card_member_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does contribute one material behavioral fact: it 'requires write access to the card's board,' which is a real authorization constraint an agent should know before calling. It says nothing about idempotency, whether removing a non-member errors, or what the response contains — gaps that matter for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One compact sentence with the usage trigger front-loaded and the permission caveat trailing, no filler or restatement of the tool name. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter membership mutation with fully described schema and no annotations, the description supplies purpose, trigger, and the write-permission requirement — enough to call it correctly. The only shortfall is silent behavior on edge cases (member not currently on the card), which is minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so both cardId and memberId are already documented in the schema with accepted formats (id, short link, URL). The description only reinforces that removal is keyed by member id and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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+resource ('unassigning a Trello member from a card') and the keying dimension ('by member id'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling card_member_add. It is clear, though it never names the add counterpart explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 'Use when unassigning...' framing gives a concrete trigger condition rather than a vague purpose statement. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming card_member_add as the alternative, but the condition for invoking it is unambiguous.

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