remove_dependency

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that reason is required and logged, but the schema already says this, and it does not expand on permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond the link removal.

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 three tight sentences with no waste. It front-loads the operation, then usage, then the critical direction constraint and required reason.

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?

Given the simple three-parameter mutation, full schema coverage, and destructive annotation, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, use case, direction, and required reason, though it could say more about the resulting state of the affected card.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful directionality: 'pass the pair in the order add_dependency took it,' which is not stated in the schema and matters for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a dependency edge.' It also names the two involved entities (task_id and depends_on_task_id) and frames the operation as clearing a blocks link, making it clearly distinct from add_dependency.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: clearing a stray or reversed blocks link that holds a card open. It also references add_dependency for edge direction, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list a direct alternative workflow.

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