weeek_remove_task_from_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it clarifies that only one project membership is affected and the task's other project links survive, and it reinforces the confirm requirement. This is useful behavioral detail on top of the annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation, the scope constraint, and the precondition, in that order. No filler.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the partial-destruction semantics, and the confirm gate. The only real gap is the undocumented 'id' parameter, which is minor.

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 only 33% (only 'confirm' is documented). The description partially compensates by noting the project can be given 'by name or id', but the required 'id' parameter remains unexplained in both description and schema. Marginal value over the schema.

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 (task from one of its projects), and the scope note 'the task keeps its other projects' distinguishes it from both weeeek_delete_task and weeeek_add_task_to_project. An agent can tell exactly which operation this is without opening the 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?

The scenario (detaching a task from a single project while retaining membership in others) is implied by the scope note, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no reference to the sibling weeeek_add_task_to_project. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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