remove_dependency_view_edge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the default return behavior (summary plus changed ids) and the verbose option, but does not disclose side effects such as irreversibility or impact on the view structure.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word 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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more detail on parameter semantics, when to use this tool versus similar ones, and the consequences of the operation. The return behavior is mentioned, but other essential context is missing.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (projectId, viewId, edgeId, verbose). It relies entirely on parameter names, which is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.

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 action: 'Remove a dependency edge from a dependency planning view.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_dependency_view_edge and update_dependency_view_edge.

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 implies usage (when you want to remove an edge) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given siblings like remove_task_from_dependency_view, there is ambiguity about edge vs task removal that is not addressed.

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