Github Remove From Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it is destructive. The description adds valuable nuance: the issue remains open but its card's field values are lost. This goes beyond the annotation and helps set expectations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 no waste. It front-loads the core action and effect, then points to a skill for conventions. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the critical behavioral nuance (issue stays open, field values lost) and points to a skill for workflow conventions. It lacks explicit parameter explanations, but the parameter names are fairly obvious. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a destructive board operation, though it could mention idempotency or reversibility.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any parameter. The parameter names are self-explanatory (repo_owner, issue_number, etc.), but the description gives no guidance on how they relate to the project board or any special constraints. This is a significant gap given five required parameters.

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 clear verb and resource ('Takes an issue or pull request off a project board') and explicitly states the effect on the issue (untouched, stays open). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'github_add_to_project' by its opposite action. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when removing an item from a project board) and explains that the issue itself is not deleted, which helps an agent decide between this and other board-related tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong. The pointer to a skill for conventions adds a workflow cue, though it is not direct guidance.

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