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

The annotations already declare a mutating, destructive, open-world operation, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the confirm-to-commit / preview-without-it gate, the required editor role, and exactly what portal visitors can and cannot see (title, status, due date, comments; no descriptions, files, people, time, money). It stops short of saying whether hiding is reversible or whether clients are notified of the change.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: the effect comes first, then the portal-visible detail, then the confirm gate and role requirement. Four distinct ideas are packed into one block, which is slightly heavy but each sentence carries actionable information.

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 boolean-toggle mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the two-step confirm flow, the permission model, and the client-visible consequences. The remaining gap is failure/edge behavior (e.g., what happens without the editor role, reversibility of hiding).

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 coverage is 67% and the 'visible' parameter has no schema description at all, so the description is doing real work: 'Shows a task ... or stops showing it' supplies the meaning of the boolean. The confirm parameter's preview semantics are reinforced rather than introduced, which is fine but redundant.

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 names a specific verb ('shows / stops showing') and a precise resource and surface ('a task on the project's client portal'), so the agent knows exactly what state is being changed. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it competes with, but the effect is unambiguous among the set_task_* family.

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?

It states the conditions for the operation clearly: making visible requires confirm: true, hiding does not, and the editor role on the project is required. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the gating conditions are spelled out.

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