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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description is consistent with. The description adds useful nuance by clarifying that the operation cancels/archives/hides rather than permanently deletes the record, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core usage condition is front-loaded, the exclusion is clear, and the alternative tool is named. Every sentence earns its place.

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 small parameter set, existing output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers usage conditions, exclusions, and non-permanent destructive behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%: both timezone and agreementId have clear descriptions, including the legacy naming note for agreementId. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: cancel, archive, or hide an existing Familia task. It also differentiates the tool from familia_update_task by explicitly excluding the 'mark done' use case, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 gives an explicit condition for use ('only when the user explicitly asks to cancel, archive, or hide'), a clear exclusion ('Do not use to mark a task done'), and names the alternative tool (familia_update_task). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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