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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint=false by disclosing what the created task inherits (título, fecha, responsable, proyecto, organización), that it is tied to the recap and private to the confirmer, that a meeting time becomes a reminder, and that undo removes the task and re-exposes the actionable. The undo/redo restoration detail clarifies why destructiveHint=false is reasonable. Missing permissions/error behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then bullets elaborate accept/undo behavior. Length is justified by the branch semantics, though the bulleted prose is slightly heavier than strictly needed.

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 3-param write with no output schema and safety covered by annotations, the description is thorough about effects and reversibility. It never states what the call returns (e.g., the new task id), which would have been useful in the absence of an output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse enum note by spelling out the effect of accept (task birth with inherited fields) and undo (task removal, actionable returns), plus noting accept is the default.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('convierte un accionable de un recap en tarea, o deshace esa confirmación') and clarifies that the tool also handles undo, which the name alone does not convey. Distinguishable from siblings like dismiss_meeting_actionable and get_meeting_actionables.

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?

Explicitly names the upstream source for ids ('los ids salen de get_meeting_actionables') and frames this as a write invoked 'cuando la persona lo pide o lo confirma'. It does not, however, contrast against the discard sibling dismiss_meeting_actionable, so the when-not is left implicit.

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