Take resources off tasks

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=true), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: tasks already begun are split at their progress, the completed portion keeps its assignment, and completed tasks are left untouched but reported with a cause in skipped[]. This is substantial operational detail.

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, front-loaded with the wizard identity and batch behavior, then the split/skip semantics. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers scope, the split-at-progress rule, and the skipped[] reporting. Combined with the destructive/idempotent annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100% and the type enum, empty taskUuids semantics, and resourceIds constraints are all documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level syntax or format detail, so it matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('takes the named resources out of many tasks at once') and frames it as the 'Remove staff'/'Remove machine park' wizard. The batch scope plus the resource/task pairing clearly distinguishes it from the per-task set/fill siblings.

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?

Gives clear context for use: a bulk removal across many tasks, executed as 'one undo step'. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when a per-task tool would be preferable, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not bar for a 5.

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