weeek_remove_assignees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies mutation, but there's no mention of whether this is reversible, whether it requires specific permissions, whether removing the last assignee has side effects, or what the response looks like. For an unannotated mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 clear sentence, zero wasted words. However, being concise is not the same as being sufficient; the one-liner under-delivers on the detail an agent needs.

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?

With 2 required parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the single-sentence description is wholly inadequate. The agent cannot determine what format 'assignees' takes, whether partial removal is possible, or what happens after invocation. For a mutation tool with zero structured support, this is completely underspecified.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are no descriptions in the schema JSON for 'task_id' or 'assignees'. The description's mention of 'assignees' loosely maps to the parameter but adds no semantic depth. The 'assignees' array of strings is ambiguous — it's unclear if these are member IDs, names, or emails, since the schema gives no hint.

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 'Remove assignees from a task' states a clear verb (remove) and resource (assignees from a task). It distinguishes from siblings like set_assignees (which adds/assigns), but it's minimally stated with no additional scope or context about which task system or limitations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use remove_assignees vs set_assignees (which could replace the full assignee set), no prerequisites, and no context about whether this partially or fully clears assignees. The sibling set_assignees creates ambiguity that isn't addressed.

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