Unlink Subtask

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds transparency by detailing what fields are affected, going beyond the annotations. However, it does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond the stated field modifications.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and scope. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the key relationship to add_subtask.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools like list_subtasks, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It lacks mention of return values or error conditions, but those are partially covered by the schema and context.

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?

The input schema describes all six parameters with brief descriptions (e.g., 'Workspace ID', 'Card ID of the parent'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'reverse of add_subtask' and specifies exactly which fields are modified ('removes the child's parentTask field and prunes the parent's subtaskRefs entry'). It distinctly differentiates from the sibling 'add_subtask'.

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 usage as the inverse of add_subtask, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any preconditions or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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