Github Remove From Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context beyond that: it clarifies that the issue itself stays open and that the card's field values are removed. This disambiguates the extent of destruction, which is valuable.

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 two sentences, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. It includes only essential information and has no redundant words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. The description explains the side effect on field values and the fact that the issue remains open. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but for a removal tool this is acceptable. It is fairly complete for a simple operation.

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 5 required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain any of them, failing to compensate for the low coverage. However, the parameter names (project_owner, issue_number, etc.) are self-explanatory, providing minimal inherent clarity, so a score of 2 is warranted.

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: 'Takes an issue or pull request off a project board.' It clearly identifies the resource (project board) and the object (issue/PR), and distinguishes from the sibling github_add_to_project. It also adds nuance about the issue remaining untouched, so it is not a tautology.

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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus alternatives. It implies the purpose of removing from a project board, and the sibling add_to_project is the obvious inverse, but no explicit exclusion or condition is given. An agent can infer usage from the action, but guidance is minimal.

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