Remove a task from an Asana project while preserving the task. Specify task_id and project_id to detach it from the project without deletion.
Remove a task from a project. The task will still exist in the system, but it will not be in the project anymore.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task ID to remove from the project | |
| project_id | Yes | The project ID to remove the task from |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: the task survives removal and only the project association is lost. However, it omits idempotency, required permissions, and what happens if the task is not in the project.
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 short sentences, no waste, with the core action front-loaded and the critical non-destructive clarification immediately after.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the essential outcome (association removed, task retained). It is nearly complete but leaves error cases and permission requirements unaddressed.
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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no param-level detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Remove a task from a project.' The second sentence explicitly distinguishes this from asana_delete_task by clarifying the task continues to exist, which is the exact disambiguation an agent needs among these 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the operation for un-associating a task from a project (counterpart to asana_add_project_to_task), but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or names any alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.