Delete Kanban task link

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it's a DELETE wrapper and mentions 'writing redacted receipts' as an output behavior. However, it doesn't clarify whether the operation is destructive to task data (only the link is removed) or what happens to orphaned links. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the 'redacted receipts' phrasing is vague and could be clearer.

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?

Single compact sentence that conveys the HTTP verb, endpoint, parameters, and output behavior. No redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. The sentence is slightly dense with the 'typed wrapper' and 'redacted receipts' jargon, but overall 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?

Tool has an output schema, so return value documentation isn't needed in the description. With 2 required params plus optional board, and good schema coverage plus annotations, the description sufficiently covers the mechanism. The main gap is what 'redacted receipts' means and whether removing a dependency has cascade effects, but the sibling count and general DELETE semantics keep this reasonably complete.

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 100%, with each parameter (board, child_id, parent_id) having descriptions in the schema. The description adds context about parent_id/child_id being query params and board being optional, but it doesn't add meaningful meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers everything. The 'such as t_xxxxxxxx' format hints add some value.

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 it's a typed DELETE wrapper that removes a dependency identified by parent_id and child_id query params, with an optional board param. Verb+resource+identification method are clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling hermes_kanban_link_create, though the DELETE verb and parent/child removal semantics make the purpose fairly self-evident.

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 this is the tool to use when removing a Kanban task dependency/link, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like hermes_kanban_link_create. There's no statement about 'when not to use' or prerequisites. The board defaults to configured default board, which gives some context. Adequate but with no explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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