remove_task_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove a reference' without explaining any side effects, such as whether the operation is irreversible, if it fails when the reference does not exist, or if any related data is affected. This lack of detail makes it difficult for an agent to anticipate the tool's 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, brief sentence that communicates the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place, though it could be slightly more informative without compromising conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description is very sparse. There is no output schema or annotations to compensate, and the description does not explain what a 'reference' is, what the 'type' parameter represents, or what happens after removal. Given the lack of any additional context, the description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions (taskId, referencedTaskId, type), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not contradict or omit information either.

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 a reference between two tasks' uses a specific verb ('Remove') and indicates the resource (a reference between tasks), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_task_reference' and 'get_task_references'. It directly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_task_reference' or 'get_task_references'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.

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