remove_placement

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that other placements remain unaffected and highlights the last-placement constraint, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. Could mention error cases or permissions, but it's sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. All information is front-loaded and earns its place. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given the simple operation (2 params), presence of output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, the edge case (last placement), and the relationship to archive_card. It is complete for this tool's 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (card_id, board_id). The description implies these are required ('take a card off one board') but does not add explicit meaning or format details. It compensates somewhat by linking to the action, but a score of 3 is appropriate as the parameters are minimally contextualized.

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 uses a specific verb ('Take a card off one board') and resource ('placement'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive_card by explaining that other placements stay and the last placement must use archive_card instead.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'The last placement can't be removed — archive_card instead.' This provides clear guidance and an alternative, satisfying the dimension fully.

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