remove_assignee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses the underlying DELETE endpoint and that the task_assignments row (plus its is_active flag) is removed outright, making the destructive, non-reversible nature clear. It does not mention required permissions or auth, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the count constraint, followed by the mechanism and the sibling contrast. The endpoint path is slightly verbose but it earns its place by clarifying the deletion semantics.

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, mechanism, and sibling disambiguation well. Only auth/permission expectations are missing, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only mild value by showing user_id as a query parameter and task_id in the path, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (one user's assignment on a task) with precise scope — exactly one assignee, others untouched. It distinguishes itself from the sibling stop_working by contrast, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (stop_working) and the condition that selects it: use stop_working to end a work session without unassigning. This is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-that statement.

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