asana_remove_from_project

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

Annotations already carry the behavioral profile (non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no further context such as side effects, error behavior, or what happens if the task is not in the project. The board-card metaphor is helpful conceptually but not behaviorally.

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 sentence with a parenthetical clarification and a reference to the symmetric operation. Every element earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter operation with strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose and relationship to its sibling. It lacks explicit usage exclusions and parameter hints, but the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage make the description sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 covers 0% of parameter descriptions, and the description provides no explanation of task_gid or project_gid. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('a task from a project'), and adds a clarifying board metaphor ('un-add a board card'). The phrase 'Symmetric with asana_add_to_project' further distinguishes it from the sibling add operation.

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 when to use it (when removing a task from a project) and references the symmetric add operation, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like asana_remove_field_from_project. Usage context is clear enough, but exclusions are absent.

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