weeek_remove_task_from_project

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. The description doesn't state side effects (does removing from a project affect task data? assignments? is it reversible?), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. For a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage, 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without losing this conciseness.

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 mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should do more heavy lifting. It doesn't explain behavior when the task belongs to only one project, whether errors occur on invalid project_id, or any side effects. The description is minimally sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for safe usage.

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%, so the two parameters (task_id, project_id) are completely undocumented except for their names and types. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds essentially no semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The description gives no context on what these IDs refer to or how they relate.

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 a task from one of the projects it belongs to' uses a specific verb (remove) and resource (task from project). It distinguishes from siblings like weeek_add_task_to_project and weeek_delete_task (which deletes the task entirely), so the purpose is clear and well-differentiated.

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 the task belongs to multiple projects ('one of the projects it belongs to'), which gives context on when to use it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it versus alternatives like weeek_delete_task, and doesn't clarify what happens if a task belongs to only one project.

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