remove_card_child

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'detach' but does not clarify side effects: whether the child card is deleted or merely unlinked, any permissions required, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap, as agents need to understand the consequence of the operation.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately sized for a simple operation. Every word earns its place.

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 this is a simple mutation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essential operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the child card remains intact (only the relationship is removed), which is important for agents to understand side effects. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be expected, but the low complexity mitigates the gap.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions 'Parent card ID' and 'Child card ID to detach', which are already clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Detach a child card from a parent card' clearly specifies the action (detach) and the resource relationship (child card from parent card). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_card_child and list_card_children, so an agent can identify the correct operation without ambiguity.

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 the use case—removing an existing child-parent relationship—but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention any constraints (e.g., requires existing relationship). There is no comparison to siblings, so the agent must infer usage from the wording.

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