remove_state_tree_global_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuine value by specifying the exact idempotency boundary ('index-out-of-range') and by enumerating the return fields (removed, remaining, saved), which conveys what the mutation reports back.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences: the action first, then the idempotency edge case and the return shape. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what is removed, keyed by index) leads.

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 destructive mutation with a compact two-parameter schema, the description covers the action, the idempotency edge case, and the return payload. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gap (why the task was removed or error behavior) is minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents tree_path and global_task_index (0-based). The description adds only the parenthetical '(by index)', which is minor reinforcement rather than new meaning, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 and resource ('Remove a tree-scoped global task') and adds the indexing mechanism ('by index'), so an agent knows exactly what it deletes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling remove_task (generic task removal), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance, which is notable given the crowded sibling set (remove_task, remove_state, add_state_tree_global_task). The idempotency note tells how it behaves but not when to reach for it.

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