remove_task_from_dependency_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the side effect that connected edges are removed too, and explains the default return behavior ('summary plus changed ids') and how to get full data via verbose=true. This goes beyond a bare mutation description, though it omits permission requirements and irreversibility details.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, side effect, and return behavior with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operational aspects: what is removed, the side effect on edges, and the default vs verbose return modes. It lacks error conditions or permission notes, but the provided information gives a complete mental model for typical use.

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 does add meaning to the verbose parameter by explaining its effect on the return payload. However, it does not explicitly describe projectId, viewId, or taskId, relying on the parameter names and context. This provides some value but leaves the required parameters underspecified.

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's function: 'Remove a task node from a dependency planning view' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_dependency_view_edge by mentioning that connected edges are also removed, and from delete_task by specifying this is about the view.

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 context—when you need to remove a task from a dependency view—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_dependency_view_edge or delete_task. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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