remove_external_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('detach') with no information about side effects, whether this is destructive/irreversible, whether it affects task links or context, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 single-sentence description is extremely concise with no wasted words, which is positive. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—one sentence with no parameter detail or usage context is minimal rather than efficient. It's acceptable but not well-structured for helping an agent decide on invocation.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which relieves the description of explaining return values), the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. With 3 required parameters at 0% coverage, no annotations, and 38 siblings to distinguish from, the description fails to provide enough context about what the tool does in detail, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to add_external_ref and resolve_ref.

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 adds no information about any of the three parameters (task_slug, system, id). The parameter names give some hints—task_slug likely identifies the task, system the reference source, and id the reference identifier—but the description provides zero elaboration on their semantics, required formats, or relationships.

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 'Detach an external reference from a task' uses a clear verb (detach) and resource (external reference from a task). It's a short, single sentence that states the core operation, but it doesn't elaborate on what an external reference is or distinguish it from related operations like resolve_ref or add_external_ref beyond the obvious inverse relationship.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list includes add_external_ref (the natural inverse) and resolve_ref, but the description doesn't mention these alternatives or provide any context about prerequisites, such as whether a reference must exist or what happens to linked data. With 38 siblings, the absence of differentiation is a notable gap.

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