unassign_user_story_from_user

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the core mutation (unassignment) and the default session behavior, but omits details about idempotency, error conditions, or permission requirements, which are important for safe invocation.

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 that conveys the essential information efficiently. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core action and session behavior. However, it lacks context on error handling, idempotency, and potential side effects, which are not compensated by annotations (none provided).

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds useful context: it clarifies that session_id is optional and defaults to the current session. However, it does not provide any additional semantics for user_story_id beyond its name, which is somewhat obvious.

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 ('Unassigns a specific user story') and the effect ('sets assigned user to null'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'assign_user_story_to_user' by using the opposite verb and specifying the result.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the sibling 'assign_user_story_to_user' implies the opposite action, there is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where this tool should be avoided, such as when reassignment is desired instead.

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