remove_task_dependency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (remove a blocking dependency) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it fails if the dependency does not exist, whether removal is reversible, or if it affects task statuses). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the essential operation efficiently and earns its place without any 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (two well-documented parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context around edge cases, error handling, or idempotency, which would be valuable for a mutation tool without annotations. It covers the basics but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both required parameters ('blocked_task_id' and 'blocking_task_id'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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 ('Remove') with a clear resource ('blocking dependency') and scope ('between tasks'). It directly distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'add_task_dependency' and other task-related tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool (when you need to remove a blocking dependency) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It is clear enough for a straightforward operation, but it does not guide the agent on when not to use it or how it contrasts with related tools like 'add_task_dependency'.

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