clickup_task_remove_dep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a destructive operation (removing relationships) but clarifies 'The tasks themselves are not affected.' It also describes the return value ('Returns an empty object on success'), which is valuable behavioral information not captured elsewhere.

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?

Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste. The first states the purpose, the second gives critical usage rules, the third describes behavioral outcomes. Every sentence earns its place by addressing distinct aspects of tool understanding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the operation, provides usage rules, clarifies what gets affected, and describes the return value. The main gap is lack of error handling or permission context, but given the schema's thorough parameter documentation, this is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it reinforces the mutual exclusivity of depends_on/dependency_of and references clickup_task_add_dep for context, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Remove an existing dependency relationship between two tasks'), identifies the resource (task dependency), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'clickup_task_add_dep' by being the inverse operation. It's precise about what gets affected ('The tasks themselves are not affected').

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Provide exactly one of depends_on or dependency_of, matching the direction you set with clickup_task_add_dep.' It names the complementary sibling tool and explains the parameter selection logic, giving clear operational context.

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