remove_github_project_blocked_by

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

Goes well beyond annotations: it discloses required scopes (project.write, item.relationship.write), the global write gate, that it re-reads both directions, persists an audit record including no_change, and that failures should not be auto-retried. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations alone (destructive/idempotent/openWorld) don't convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by scope, preconditions, side effects, and retry guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers action, preconditions, side effects, and failure handling well. The only gap is that none of the four parameters are explained, which matters given 0% schema coverage.

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 0% with 4 required params. The description hints at source/target semantics via 'source's blocked-by relationship to target,' but owner and number are completely undocumented, and there is no format guidance for sourceItemId/targetItemId. It fails to compensate for the zero coverage.

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+resource: 'Remove source's blocked-by relationship to target.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling add_github_project_blocked_by. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Provides clear preconditions: both items must belong to the same authorized Project, requires an authenticated actor with specific scopes plus a global write gate, and 'do not retry failures automatically.' It doesn't explicitly name the add_ sibling as the inverse alternative, but the usage context is well constrained.

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