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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the action is permanent, there is no recycle bin, it cannot be undone, only the link is removed, and it requires explicit human confirmation. It also discloses the invisible-failure behavior where using a task id deletes nothing but still returns success. This is rich, honest transparency well beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the most critical warning (permanence), then explains the confirmation requirement, then gives the precise parameter source and the common mistake to avoid. It is dense but not bloated, and the all-caps warnings are justified for the destructive nature of the operation.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is fully complete for this destructive tool: it covers permanence, human confirmation constraints, how to source the correct ID, the exact wrong-ID failure mode, and what the operation does not do. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and avoid irreversible mistakes.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantic meaning: it explains that `dependency_id` is the link's ID from `tasks_get_dependencies`, not a task ID, and warns that the two fields sit beside each other. It also clarifies the human-only nature of `confirm` and `confirmation_phrase`, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'PERMANENTLY remove a link between two tasks.' It specifies the exact resource (the link, not either task) and distinguishes itself from task deletion by emphasizing 'it removes only the link, never either task.' This makes the purpose unmistakable among sibling tools like tasks_delete and tasks_add_dependency.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: it says to read `dependency_id` from `tasks_get_dependencies`, warns that a task id is the wrong value, and explicitly instructs that confirm/confirmation_phrase must be supplied by the human, never the agent. It also explains the failure mode when the wrong ID is used, which helps the agent know how to use this tool correctly.

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