remove_card_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the removal action but does not mention permissions, reversibility, effects on related entities, or response behavior. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation and includes the essential action and target, meeting the standard for efficient communication.

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 nature of the operation and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not mention expected response, failure modes, or prerequisites. A bit more context (e.g., confirmation behavior) would improve completeness.

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 100%, so both parameters are already explained in the schema ('Card ID' and 'Member user ID to remove'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Remove a member from a card.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_card_member and update_card_member_role through the verb 'remove,' though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when removal is desired, but lacks context such as preconditions, error handling, or when not to use it. Unlike the get_calls example, no alternative tool is mentioned.

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