unlink_task

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 notes idempotency, but doesn't disclose whether the operation is destructive beyond removing links (e.g., does it cascade to delete linked entities?), whether it requires specific permissions, or how it handles refs not currently in the list. The 'Idempotent' statement is useful but thin for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence plus a one-word note. Zero filler words, front-loaded with the action 'Remove refs from a task's link list'. The 'Idempotent' note is a compact but valuable addition. Appropriate length for a simple 2-parameter tool.

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 only 2 simple parameters, an output schema present, and no nested objects, the complexity is low. However, the description is also sparse: it doesn't clarify what 'refs' are in this system context, and given zero annotation coverage, a bit more detail on behavior would help. The sibling tool naming suggests a link/unlink pair, which provides useful context, but the description itself is minimal.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for either parameter. The description mentions 'refs' and 'task' in context, mapping loosely to task_slug and refs, but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid ref, the ref format, or constraints on the task_slug. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 'Remove refs from a task's link list' uses a clear verb (Remove) with a specific resource (task's link list) and subject (refs). It distinguishes from the sibling link_task, which is the inverse operation. However, it doesn't fully describe what a 'ref' is or what the link list represents, leaving some ambiguity about the domain model.

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 inverse operation is implicitly clear given the sibling 'link_task', establishing a paired-use context. However, there's no explicit instruction on when to use this vs alternatives, no mention of when unlinking is appropriate, and no exclusions or caveats beyond idempotency. The 'Idempotent' note gives some safety guidance but doesn't specify effects on already-unlinked refs.

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