remove_dependency

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the important requirement that confirm must be set to true, which is a useful safety detail. However, it does not mention the destructive nature of the action, permissions, or the consequence of not setting confirm, leaving other behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and a key requirement without any extraneous information. It earns its place and is highly concise.

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 removal tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action and the confirm requirement, but it omits details about return values, error conditions, or what happens if confirm is false. This makes it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 description adds meaning by explicitly stating that confirm=true is required, and the phrase 'from a work item' clarifies the relationship between work_item_id and dependency_id. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage, but the other parameters (project_id, work_item_id, dependency_id) are not individually described beyond their names.

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'), the object ('a dependency'), and the context ('from a work item'), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_dependency and list_dependencies.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (removing a dependency) and adds a critical usage condition (confirm=true required). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, so it falls short of a full 5.

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