ghl_project_remove_list_task

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the exact response body `{ "success": true }`, the fact that the underlying task survives, the home-list restriction, the OAuth scope (projects/tasks.write) and the endpoint/version. That clarifies precisely what the 'destructive' hint covers here — membership removal, not task deletion.

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 tool's actual purpose does not appear until after a six-sentence preamble about hierarchy, RBAC filtering, lexorank positions, recurring-task fields and search sync — almost none of which applies to removing a list membership. The one generically relevant line ('treat every delete as destructive') also misdirects, since this call does not delete anything. The specific and useful content is buried at the back.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the response shape, the auth scope, the endpoint and the key constraint. The only gap is behavior when the task is not actually a member of that list (silent success vs error), which the idempotentHint partly implies.

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 coverage is 100%, with each of listId, taskId and locationId documented inline including the APP-channel caveat. The description adds only the framing that listId identifies an 'additional list' rather than the home list, which is useful but marginal against a fully documented schema — baseline 3.

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 operative sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Removes an additional-list membership') and explicitly distinguishes it from deletion: 'This does not delete the task.' That contrast separates it from the sibling ghl_project_delete_task and from ghl_project_add_list_task.

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?

It gives a concrete pre-condition and workaround — 'Cannot remove the task's home list — move the home list first' — which routes the agent to the home-list workflow before calling this. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tool to use for that move, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing.

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