Clear completed tasks

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

The description directly contradicts the destructiveHint=true annotation by claiming tasks are only 'hidden' and 'remain retrievable.' This is a serious inconsistency flagged as an annotation contradiction. The description should have disclosed the destructive nature or aligned with the annotation.

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 sentences with the primary action front-loaded and a concise explanation of the retention behavior. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but the description provides misleading information about destructiveness. Given the annotation set and lack of output schema, the description fails to convey the true impact of the operation, making it incomplete.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description for list_id. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('hide') and resource ('every completed task in a list'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_task or complete_tasks. It also explains the observable effect (removal from Google Tasks UI) which further clarifies the tool's 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 clarifies when to use the tool by describing its non-destructive behavior and the fact that tasks remain retrievable via include="all". However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, relying on implicit contrast with delete_task.

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