unassign_people

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is a write operation and not destructive. The description adds valuable context about the side-effect that project membership remains unchanged, which is not obvious from the name or 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a clarifying nuance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 with output schema and annotations, the description adequately captures the essential behavior and the key distinction from sibling tools. No critical information is missing.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both task_id and people. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Take people off') and identifies the resource (task) and the precise action (removes the assignment). It distinguishes this tool from assign_people and set_project_members by clarifying that project membership is untouched.

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 implies when to use this tool by highlighting that it only removes the assignment and does not affect project membership. This gives context for choosing it over alternatives, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions.

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