Manage Task List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, potentially destructive operation. The description adds the specific actions, including 'clear completed tasks,' which implies destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether delete is permanent, whether clear_completed is irreversible, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the four actions compactly. It earns its place with no filler. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the action list), but it's efficient and readable.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description plus schema covers the four actions and their required parameters. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like what happens when title is provided for delete/clear_completed, or whether update requires both title and task_list_id. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including which are required for which actions. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the action list, which is already in the schema's enum-like description. Baseline 3 is correct 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Manage') and resource ('task lists') and enumerates the four actions: create, update, delete, or clear completed tasks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_task_lists, list_tasks, and manage_task by focusing on the task list level rather than individual tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 by listing the actions, and the schema's required parameters and per-action requirements provide some guidance. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_task or list_task_lists, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task list ID for update/delete/clear_completed). The context is adequate but not explicit.

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