Remove a blocker from a goal by blocker UUID. If it was the last active blocker, the goal automatically returns to its previous status (in_progress or backlog). Does not delete the linked resolver goal if one exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goalId | Yes | UUID цели | |
| blockerId | Yes | UUID блокера |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by explaining specific side effects: the automatic status reversion to 'in_progress or backlog' if the last active blocker is removed, and the non-deletion of a linked resolver goal. This adds valuable behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.
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 composed of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential side-effect information. No redundant or filler content is present.
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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main function, side effects, and an important caution about the resolver goal. It does not explain error handling or return values, but these are not critical for a straightforward remove operation with good annotations.
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%, with both parameters already described (goalId and blockerId). The description adds minimal new semantic value by specifying that blockerId is a UUID, but this is a minor clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter meaning.
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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'blocker from a goal', specifying the method 'by blocker UUID'. It also differentiates from sibling tools like goal-remove-assumption or goal-remove-evidence by focusing on blockers. The additional detail about status change further clarifies its distinct role.
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 usage for removing blockers from goals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct comparison with sibling tools like goal-block or other remove tools, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes (goal-create vs goal-update vs goal-delete), but the evidence-related tools (goal-add-evidence-text, goal-attach-evidence, goal-request-upload) and note tools (goal-add-note) have overlapping concepts that require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. Overall, the detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity, but a few tools could be easily confused.
The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a resource prefix (goal-create, goal-get, project-list, project-update). However, there are deviations like account-delete (noun-verb reversed), goal-todo, goal-summary, goal-tree, and goal-recent-unresolved that break the pattern. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
With 38 tools, this server has a very large surface area. Even for a complex planner with evidence management, the number exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Many tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., goal-add-note and goal-add-evidence-text), and the size may overwhelm agents during tool selection.
The tool set provides complete coverage of the domain: full goal lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, list, tree, move, reorder, block), evidence management (attach, request upload, text evidence, remove), acceptance criteria (add, update, remove, request change, resolve escalation), assumptions (add, update, remove, suggest, attach evidence), blockers, notes, project management (CRUD, dependencies), and configuration settings. No critical gaps are apparent.