remove_dependencyRemove the prerequisite edge (task_id depends on depends_on_task_id). No-op if the edge does not exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The dependent task. Id or task URL. | |
| depends_on_task_id | Yes | The blocker task to detach. Id or task URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the key behavioral trait 'No-op if the edge does not exist,' which is important for safe invocation and is not visible in the annotations. Annotations already indicate this is a write operation but not destructive; the description is consistent with that and clarifies idempotent behavior.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the operation and immediately gives the central edge case. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant explanation.
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?
For a simple two-parameter mutation with fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the operation, the relationship, and the no-op edge case. It does not mention the return value, but with no output schema and a trivial operation this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.
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 coverage is 100%, and both parameter descriptions are already clear: 'task_id' is the dependent task and 'depends_on_task_id' is the blocker task to detach. The description restates the relationship direction but does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('prerequisite edge'), and clarifies the dependency direction with 'task_id depends on depends_on_task_id'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from broader task-editing siblings.
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 use case is implied clearly by 'Remove the prerequisite edge,' so an agent can infer when to call it. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as update_task, and there are no exclusion conditions.
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 target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.
At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.
The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.