clickup_task_unlink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a mutation operation (removing a link), specifies it's bidirectional, notes it doesn't affect tasks themselves, states it's idempotent ('No-op if no link exists'), and describes the return value ('Returns an empty object on success'). This covers most critical aspects for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the purpose, second clarifies scope, third describes idempotency and return value. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 provides good coverage: purpose, behavior, idempotency, and return value. It could potentially mention error conditions or permissions, but given the schema fully documents parameters and the description covers key behavioral aspects, it's mostly 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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between task_id and links_to beyond 'unlink from'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a bidirectional reference link'), specifies the resource ('previously created with clickup_task_link'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the related tool clickup_task_link. It explicitly notes that tasks themselves are not affected, only the link between them.

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 this tool ('Remove a bidirectional reference link previously created with clickup_task_link') and mentions it's a 'No-op if no link exists,' which helps understand its behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the reference to clickup_task_link implies its complementary nature.

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