planner_unassign_task

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that some unassignments require end-user confirmation via confirm_code, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits permissions required, what happens when a listed assignee is not currently assigned, whether the operation is reversible, and how errors are surfaced.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the conditional confirmation note. Slightly terse given the parameter ambiguity, but structurally sound.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation's intent and one important edge-case workflow. It remains incomplete on required permissions, partial-failure behavior, and return information, which an agent needs for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across all three parameters. The description only hints at confirm_code by name ('see confirm_code'), without explaining its format, how it is obtained, or when it is supplied. It says nothing about task_id or the semantics of multiple assignee_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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one or more users from a task's assignees.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling planner_assign_task, which does the inverse 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?

It provides a concrete conditional workflow rule: involving unregistered people requires the user's confirmation and therefore the confirm_code path. It does not explicitly name planner_assign_task as the alternative for the opposite operation, but the scope of use is clear from the stated purpose.

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