delete_taskStop and remove a scheduled task and its run history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | From list_tasks. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral detail that run history is also removed, and that the task is stopped first. This enriches understanding without contradicting the 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the action 'Stop and remove' and no unnecessary words. It earns its place entirely.
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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description, combined with annotations and schema, is sufficient. It covers purpose, side effects, and parameter provenance. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values.
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 has 100% coverage, with task_id described as 'From list_tasks.' The description does not add additional parameter guidance, but the schema already fully informs the agent where to obtain the ID. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 explicit verbs 'Stop and remove' with the resource 'a scheduled task and its run history', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_task, list_tasks, and get_task_runs. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for permanently eliminating a task and its history, which implicitly indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
The task lifecycle tools (create_task, delete_task, get_task_runs, list_tasks) are clearly distinct, and china_reachability is a direct one-off measurement while what_can_you_do is a meta helper. The only mild ambiguity is that create_task can create a watch_reachability schedule, which overlaps conceptually with china_reachability, but the descriptions clarify one-off versus scheduled.
create_task, delete_task, get_task_runs, and list_tasks follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but china_reachability is a noun-phrase measurement tool and what_can_you_do is an idiomatic helper phrase. The set is readable but mixes naming conventions.
Six tools is well-scoped for a scheduled-task server covering creation, deletion, listing, run inspection, a direct reachability check, and self-help. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious bloat or thinness.
The core scheduled-task lifecycle is covered: create, list, inspect runs, and delete. However, there is no update_task or pause/resume capability, so changing a task's schedule or configuration requires deleting and recreating it, which also loses run history. That is a notable operational gap.