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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: the schedule recalculation, the direction of the move ('downstream tasks may move earlier'), the fact that the response enumerates the moved tasks, and the write-permission prerequisite. That is exactly the mutation-impact context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, followed by the disambiguation and the permission requirement. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With three required parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is removed, what is recalculated, what comes back, and the permission gate. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and each parameter carries a clear description including the projectId format and lookup source. The prose adds nothing about predecessor/successor ordering that the schema does not already say, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Removes the dependency link between two tasks' — and immediately adds the side effect (date recalculation). It is unmistakably distinct from planitude_link_tasks and from any task-deletion sibling, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 usage context is clear: this is the operation for breaking a predecessor/successor relationship, and the sentence 'It removes only the link, never a task' sets a boundary that prevents confusion with destructive task removal. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when a link removal is inappropriate, so it falls just below the explicit-alternatives bar.

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