remove_assignee

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. It states the primary action but does not mention side effects, error behavior, permissions, reversibility, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is a mutation with no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation effectively and is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important context unaddressed: return behavior, error cases, prerequisites, and how this tool relates to add_assignee or list_assignees. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete guidance for an AI agent.

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 the description does not add meaning to task_id or user_id beyond the obvious parameter names. The phrase 'a user from a task' loosely maps to the parameters, but it does not clarify constraints, relationships, or formats, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Unassign a user from a task.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from related tools like add_assignee, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate siblings.

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 usage is implied by the name and description: use this tool when a user should be removed from a task. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., remove_relation, list_assignees) might be more appropriate in a given context.

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