Manage Task List

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description merely echoes this by listing 'delete' and 'clear completed tasks' without adding contextual details such as permanence of deletion, impact on contained tasks, or permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, but it fails to disclose behavior beyond what the schema and annotations already convey.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the specific operations. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and a straightforward CRUD-like behavior.

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?

Given the presence of a complete output schema, full parameter descriptions, and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is largely sufficient. It captures the high-level operations and the specific 'clear completed tasks' nuance. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a note about the irreversibility of delete or clear actions, though this is partially covered by the destructiveHint annotation.

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 each parameter is already well-documented (e.g., title required for create/update, task_list_id for update/delete/clear_completed). The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond restating the allowed actions, which are also listed in the action parameter's description. Thus 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manage task lists: create, update, delete, or clear completed tasks.' It identifies the resource (task lists) and enumerates the supported operations, distinguishing it from siblings like manage_task (which handles individual tasks) and list_task_lists (which is read-only). However, the verb 'Manage' is somewhat generic and does not add specificity beyond the enumerated actions.

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 for task list management but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_task for individual tasks or list_task_lists for retrieval. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so the usage context is only inferred from the resource type and sibling names.

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