weeek_remove_assignees

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the danger profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the call returns the task (useful given there is no output schema) and reiterates the confirm gate already documented in the schema, but says nothing about permission requirements or what happens to tasks where the member is not assigned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loading the action, then the precondition, then the return value. No filler and nothing buried.

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 3-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, precondition, and return value, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around the id parameter's meaning and per-item failure behavior.

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 33%; only confirm carries a schema description. The description usefully clarifies that assignees accepts names or ids, which the schema does not state, but leaves the id parameter and the 50-item cap undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (unassign) + resource (members) + target (WEEEK task), with the accepted identifier forms (name or id) called out. It is unambiguously the inverse of the sibling weeek_add_assignees, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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 states the precondition (confirm:true required) which gates invocation, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions distinguishing it from siblings, and no note about mixing name/id in one call. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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