remove_task_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It labels the call as a WRITE and discloses the key idempotency behavior: removed=false when the URL is absent. It doesn't mention authorization, errors, or exact return object shape, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first names the operation, the second handles idempotency. The WRITE marker is useful and front-loaded, making the tool's general kind immediately clear.

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 small, idempotent mutating call, this is nearly complete: it states the action, the affected data, and one important return-value boundary. There is no output schema, so this last point matters greatly; the description adequately conveys the outcome. The only clear gap is unspecified semantics for the optional agent parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the url parameter (the reference to remove) and indirectly taskId, but does not explain projectId or the optional agent parameter. These remain ambiguous, making the description insufficient as parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb, resource, and action: removes a reference by URL from a task's '## References' section. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_task_reference, list_task_references, and especially remove_task_link, which deals with links rather than references.

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 use case is implied: when a reference by URL should be removed from a task's References section. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but the clear operation and direct mapping to add_task_reference make it inferable.

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