Manage Task

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific actions but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances such as irreversibility of delete, dependency on task_id for update/delete/move, or the meaning of 'move' (between lists vs. reordering). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and actions. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. While the schema fills in parameter details, the description could provide more context on action-specific parameter requirements (e.g., task_id needed for update/delete/move, destination_task_list for moves between lists). It is adequate for a basic understanding but not comprehensive for a multi-action mutation tool.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description itself does not add new parameter details, but it does mention action types that map to the 'action' parameter. This meets the baseline but adds little beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('manage') and resource ('tasks'), and enumerates the actions: create, update, delete, or move. It distinguishes from siblings like manage_task_list (task lists) and read-only tools like list_tasks/get_task by specifying task-level mutations.

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: use this when you need to create, update, delete, or move tasks. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., list_tasks for viewing) or provide guidance on which action to choose for specific scenarios. The 'within task lists' phrase gives partial context but no exclusions.

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