clickup_task_unlink

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive to tasks, is a no-op if no link exists, and returns an empty object on success. This provides good transparency, though it could mention any prerequisites or permissions.

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 concise sentences covering purpose, effect on tasks, no-op behavior, and return value. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (empty object on success). It covers key behaviors (no-op, non-destructive). It might benefit from noting error handling or required permissions, but overall it is complete enough for a straightforward unlinking operation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds valuable context for task_id: 'Obtain from clickup_task_list (field: id) or clickup_task_get (field: linked_tasks[]).' This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent source the correct IDs.

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 tool removes a bidirectional reference link created with clickup_task_link, and specifies that tasks themselves are unaffected. This differentiates it from the sibling clickup_task_link tool.

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 explicitly mentions this tool is for removing a link previously created, and notes it is a no-op if no link exists, guiding when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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