teamleader_projects_unassign

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 only states the action (remove assignment) without mentioning side effects, whether the project itself is affected, authorization requirements, or irreversibility. For a 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that directly conveys the core action and object. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded, though it lacks additional structure such as a usage note or example.

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 unassign operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens to the project, whether the user/team is removed from other contexts) and usage guidance, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to reason about side effects.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at assignee_type by mentioning 'user or team' and the concept of assignment, but does not clarify that 'id' refers to the project ID or how to obtain assignee_id. The schema's parameter names alone do not convey enough meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Verwijder de toewijzing' - remove the assignment) and the specific resource ('nextgen-project'), with the object being a user or team. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like teamleader_projects_assign or teamleader_projects_add_owner.

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: use this when you need to remove a user/team assignment from a project. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it (e.g., vs. remove_owner, remove_customer) or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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