Remove an existing dependency between two features to decouple their tracking. Use this to correct or update feature relationships in the project database.
Remove a dependency between two features.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| cwd | No | Directory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree. | |
| depends_on | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a mutating operation but discloses no side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens if the dependency does not exist, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.
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 a single sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately front-loaded and communicates the primary operation clearly without wasting the agent's attention.
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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, this description is insufficient. It omits parameter roles, dependency direction, behavioral effects, and any return or error semantics, leaving important context for the agent to fill in from the tool name and parameter names.
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?
Only cwd has a schema description; id and depends_on are undocumented, and schema description coverage is only 33%. The description adds minimal parameter context by mentioning two features, but it does not clarify which parameter is the dependent feature or the dependency being removed, forcing reliance on parameter names alone.
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 states a specific action ('Remove') and a specific resource ('a dependency between two features'), clearly conveying the tool's core function. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like feature_link, which presumably creates dependencies, based on the unlink/link verb contrast.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion cases. While removing a dependency is implied as the use case, there is no mention of feature_link or other related tools, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.