Unlink Task from Context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation is a destructive multi-delete ('deletes EVERY EntityBlock... at any depth, in any block field, one DELETE /block each'), warns that nested content inside a removed block is destroyed too, and specifies the no-op case when no embedding exists.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler; the parenthetical '(people, projects, meetings, ...)' and '(at any depth, in any block field)' are dense but each adds real semantic precision, though the middle sentence is long enough to be slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers mechanism, destructive scope, and the no-op case; it stops short of stating permission requirements, whether the call is idempotent, or what a partial failure across multiple DELETE /block calls returns.

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%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only reinforces that object_id is the object whose body embeds the task and that removal happens at any depth, which adds marginal meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a task from another object's Context') and immediately defines what 'Context' means in Capacities as a derived set of embedding objects, which lets an agent distinguish this from siblings like link_to_context and delete_object without reading the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the derived-Context explanation and the no-op clause ('If the target does not embed the task, nothing is removed'), but the description never explicitly names an alternative such as link_to_context for the inverse operation or delete_object for destroying the task itself.

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