Runn: remove workstream from project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP method (DELETE), the precise effect (removes project link only), and the non-destructive nature toward the workstream. It does not cover error conditions or return format, but for a simple unlink operation, the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action with the endpoint, the second clarifies the crucial side effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two required integer parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and its key nuance (not deleting the workstream). It lacks information about idempotency or error handling, but these are not essential for a straightforward detach operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by embedding the parameters in a URL template (/projects/{projectId}/project-workstreams/{workstreamId}), clarifying that projectId and workstreamId are path IDs. While it doesn't elaborate on their meaning, the endpoint context sufficiently conveys their roles.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detach') and resource ('workstream from a project'), and clarifies the scope ('Removes the project link only; the workstream itself is not deleted.'). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like runn_delete_workstream, which deletes the workstream entirely.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool by explicitly stating what it does NOT do ('the workstream itself is not deleted'), which contrasts with delete_workstream. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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