reclaim_clear_exceptions

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

The description adds context beyond the idempotentHint annotation by defining 'scheduling exceptions' with examples (manual adjustments, declines) and stating the effect (reschedule normally). It does not contradict the annotation, as clearing exceptions is idempotent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('clears') and includes context. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's function and what exceptions are. Could optionally mention that it only affects scheduling exceptions, but not necessary.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully describes the taskId parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 provides a specific verb ('clears'), a clear resource ('scheduling exceptions for a Reclaim.ai task'), and the outcome ('allowing it to reschedule normally'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like reclaim_update_task or reclaim_mark_complete by focusing on exception clearing.

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 implies usage when a task has scheduling exceptions that prevent normal rescheduling ('allowing it to reschedule normally'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other modifications. Still, the context is clear enough.

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