delete_taskDelete a task from a draft UT. Irreversible — the task and its fields are gone for good, so double-check the taskId (from get_ut) before calling. Only works on tasks of PREPARING drafts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'the task and its fields are gone for good' and 'double-check the taskId (from get_ut)'. This goes beyond the raw annotation by explaining irreversibility and the safety precaution, though it doesn't describe error handling or return behavior.
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 two sentences: the first states the action and object, the second adds irreversibility and a warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple destructive tool with one parameter, the description covers what it deletes, the critical safety check, and the draft-type constraint. Since destructiveHint is already annotated and no output schema exists, no further return-value explanation is necessary. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool safely.
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?
The schema only lists taskId as a string with no description. The description compensates by explaining that taskId comes from get_ut and identifies a task within a draft UT, giving operational meaning to the single parameter. This is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource 'a task from a draft UT', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_use_case. The additional constraint 'Only works on tasks of PREPARING drafts' further clarifies scope, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 advises verifying the taskId from get_ut before calling and notes the operation only works on PREPARING drafts, providing clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., update_task for modifications), so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action. Even get_ut, which returns comprehensive data, doesn't replace the specialized get_session, get_transcript, or get_quantitative_report for detailed views. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., add_task, get_ut, list_workspaces). The main inconsistency is using 'create' for UTs (create_ut) but 'add' for child entities (add_use_case, add_task), and having a separate update_scenario instead of folding it into update_ut, but the convention is still predictable.
With 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the domain of usability testing requires distinct operations for drafting (use cases, tasks, scenario), reading results (reports, sessions, transcripts), and comparison. Each tool has a clear role, so the count feels reasonable rather than excessive.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: create, read, update, and delete for tasks/use cases, plus comprehensive retrieval of results and notes. Minor gaps include no delete_ut (UTs cannot be removed) and no explicit status change or cloning mechanism, but these are likely intentional app-side actions, so the surface is not severely incomplete.