tasks.tasks.clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that affected tasks are hidden rather than removed, that they disappear from default listings, that the operation is a POST-style mutation, and that it is refused under readonly safety profiles. It stops short of stating required auth scopes or whether the hiding is reversible.

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 purpose and key behavioral caveat are front-loaded, and the description is reasonably sized for a 5-parameter mutation tool. The trailing sibling list and HTTP/body-building boilerplate are useful but slightly dilute conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-destructive 'hide' behavior, readonly refusal, return format, and request-body construction. It lacks permission/scope details and a description of the returned resource, but remains adequate to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful cross-parameter semantics: typed parameters override the `params` map, and `body_file` can supply the whole request body instead. This meaningfully supplements the schema descriptions.

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: 'Clears all completed tasks from the specified task list.' It also clarifies the non-obvious effect that tasks are marked hidden rather than deleted, which distinguishes this from a destructive delete operation.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'clears all completed tasks' phrasing and the note that it is refused under --readonly profiles. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings such as delete, patch, or update; it merely lists those siblings.

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