Clear completed tasks

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

Even though annotations already mark this as destructive, the description adds critical behavioral detail: tasks are flagged hidden rather than deleted, remain retrievable via list_tasks with show_completed=true and show_hidden=true, and can be restored individually with reopen_task. It also warns that there is no bulk un-clear and explicitly states the return value. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main action and scope, then provides dense, relevant detail about hidden state, recovery, destructiveness, and return shape. Every sentence earns its place, and the parenthetical about the Google Tasks UI adds useful real-world context without padding.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it does not do, side effects, recoverability, destructive nature, and the response format. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict its consequences.

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% and the schema already documents tasklist_id, including the '@default' special value. The description adds that the ID is echoed in the response, but it doesn't need to explain parameter meaning further because the schema handles it fully. Baseline 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 specific verb and resource: it clears ALL completed tasks from one list in a single call. It clearly distinguishes itself from deleting tasks, completing individual open tasks, and restoring tasks via reopen_task. The scope and behavior are unambiguous.

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 clear context: it operates on completed tasks only, leaves open (needsAction) tasks untouched, and has no bulk undo. It also names list_tasks and reopen_task as recovery paths. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus a sibling like complete_task or delete_task, so it stops just short of complete routing guidance.

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