delete_taskPermanently delete a Tango task. Use this to remove a duplicate or a bare task that was superseded by a fully-specified one. Requires the caller to have permission on the task via RLS (owner, agency admin, or task creator). This is destructive and irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to acknowledge this is destructive. | |
| task_id | Yes | Task id, or a pasted Tango task URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark destructiveHint true, and the description adds important behavioral context: the operation is irreversible and requires a confirm acknowledgment. It also explains the permission model, which is valuable beyond the structured 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?
Three concise sentences deliver purpose, usage context, permissions, and destructiveness without filler. The most important warning ('destructive and irreversible') is placed at the end but is clearly surfaced.
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 destructive delete operation with a confirm parameter, the description covers the essential what, when, prerequisites, and consequences. The schema handles parameter details, and no output schema is needed for a void-like destructive action.
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%, so both task_id and confirm are already fully documented, including the const true requirement and the URL option for task_id. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a Tango task.' It also names the intended use case (removing duplicates or bare tasks superseded by fully-specified ones), which distinguishes it from related tools like update_task or complete_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 clear context for when to use the tool and states a precondition: the caller must have RLS permission as owner, agency admin, or task creator. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just 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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.
At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.
The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.