task_delete

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

The description discloses the irrecoverable nature of the deletion (不可恢复), which is a key behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it does not mention permissions, cascading effects, or any other side effects, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loading the action and the irrecoverability caveat. It is efficient with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter delete tool without an output schema, the description is adequate. It communicates the action and the key risk (irrecoverable), which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. No additional context seems necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully describes the 'id' parameter as '任务ID' (task ID) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'task' (删除指定任务), and adds the critical caveat 'irrecoverable' (不可恢复). This distinguishes it from update or change-status siblings.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_update or task_change_status. It only states the action itself, leaving the agent to infer when deletion is appropriate.

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