unassign_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a boolean indicating success, and notes behavior when no matching assignment is found (returns false). However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or error conditions (e.g., invalid task_id).

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 extremely concise: one introductory sentence, then a clear Args list and Returns statement. Every sentence adds value, and the action is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simplicity of the operation (two string parameters, a boolean return) and the existence of an output schema (implied by the return description), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core function, parameters, and return format. Minor missing details (e.g., error handling) are not critical for a straightforward tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that task_id is the 'uniqueID of the task' and resource_id is the 'uniqueID of the resource', adding clear semantics beyond the schema's type and title. This is adequate for clarity.

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 action: 'Remove a resource assignment from a task.' It uses a specific verb (remove) and resource (assignment from task), and distinguishes from siblings like assign_resource (which adds) and list_assignments (which lists).

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as when an assignment exists versus when it doesn't, or prerequisites like the task and resource must exist.

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