write_unassign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context: the operation is exact and targets a person+role pair, with a conditional requirement on role. However, it does not disclose return/error behavior or what happens if no matching assignment exists.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional rule in a compact follow-up. Every clause earns its place.

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-parameter destructive tool with helpful annotations and schema descriptions, the description supplies enough to select and invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error handling and the exact behavior when role is omitted, but they are not critical given the annotations.

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 schema already documents user and role with examples (67% coverage), and the description adds meaning by framing the operation as removing a person+role assignment from a card and explaining when role is required. The id parameter is still not described explicitly, but the card context makes its role reasonably clear.

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 action verb ('Remove') and a precise resource ('one exact assignment (person + role) from a card'). This clearly differentiates it from write_assign and write_set_role_effort, and the role condition further pinpoints its exact scope.

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?

It gives a clear operational rule: when the person holds several roles on the card, the role is required. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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