todo_unblock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a mutation, but it does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether the relationship must exist, if it is idempotent, or what happens to dependent todos). No output or error behavior is mentioned, leaving the agent with minimal guidance on the tool's runtime behavior.

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 sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the core operation and is appropriately sized for a straightforward removal tool. No redundant details are present, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Although an output schema exists (which we don't see) and might cover return values, the description is minimal for a mutation tool. It lacks context on prerequisites, error cases, or any special conditions. Given the absence of annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context, but it does not. It is adequate only for the simplest of scenarios.

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 only 33% (only project_id has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the parameter names themselves. todo_id and blocker_id are self-explanatory from the tool name, but the description does not explicitly state their roles or any constraints beyond the schema. With low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 one blocker relationship from a todo' uses a specific verb (remove), a resource (blocker relationship), and an object (todo). It clearly conveys the operation, which is unambiguous even without naming the sibling todo_block. It could have explicitly differentiated from the add-blocker operation, but the purpose is clear and concise.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., todo_block, todo_update). The context implies it is the inverse of todo_block, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or conditions for selection. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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