backlog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully conveys the exact-match constraint and case-sensitivity requirement, but omits error behavior (e.g., what happens if text not found) and return value details.

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?

Four efficient sentences with zero waste: action definition first, constraint details second, prerequisite guidance third, and alternative tool fourth. Appropriately front-loaded.

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 focused scope (2 parameters, simple destructive operation, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. Covers the critical constraint (exact case-sensitive match) and workflow prerequisites without requiring return value documentation.

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%, establishing baseline 3. The description adds workflow context (use task_info first to discover valid text values) that helps agents understand how to populate the 'text' parameter correctly, adding value beyond the schema definitions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with resource 'annotation from a task' and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool task_annotate in the final clause. The scope (specific annotation by exact text match) is clearly defined.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use task_info to see all annotations... before removing' establishes prerequisites, and 'To add annotations, use task_annotate' names the correct alternative for the inverse operation.

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