Remove Project From Task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by detailing the non-destructive effects: the task remains, other project memberships are preserved, and only the association is removed. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify the exact scope of the destructive action.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and then clarify boundaries. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 tool with full annotations and complete schema descriptions, this description is complete enough. It explains the exact effect, what remains unaffected, and the limited scope of the operation. No output schema exists, but none is needed for such a straightforward removal action.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters fully with clear descriptions: task_id is the GID of the task, project_id is the GID of the project to remove from. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the specific action: remove a task from a project. It explicitly distinguishes this from deleting the task ('The task still exists...') and from removing tag associations by specifying 'Only removes the association.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to unlink a task from a project without deleting it. It implies when not to use it (not for deleting tasks, not for affecting other project memberships). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_task or remove_tag, so it lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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