remove_from_project

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveness, but the description adds important context: the issue or PR stays open and only the card's field values are lost. This helps the agent understand the real scope of the destructive action beyond the bare destructiveHint flag.

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 tight sentences. The first states the action, and the second adds the crucial side-effect clarification. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 destructive tool with five required parameters and an output schema, the description provides the core behavioral context needed: what is removed and what is preserved. It does not elaborate on parameter meanings or usage scenarios, but the clarity of the action and effect makes the definition reasonably complete.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five required parameters. While the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, the description's mention of 'pull request' is not clearly mapped to the issue_number parameter, leaving some ambiguity for agents selecting 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 specific verb and resource: 'Takes an issue or pull request off a project board.' It also clarifies the scope by stating the issue itself is untouched, which distinguishes this from issue deletion and reinforces the tool's specific role relative to siblings like add_to_project.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever an item should be removed from a project board. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as add_to_project or set_project_field, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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