delete-todo-task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description 'Delete' aligns with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide. It doesn't mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or the confirm gate that might be mandatory. Given the annotations cover the core destructive nature, the description contributes nothing extra, earning a 2.

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, 'Delete a todoTask object.' It's minimal and efficient with no wasted words. For a straightforward delete operation, this is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 operation, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention the confirm gate requirement (even though it's in the schema, the description doesn't point to it), nor does it provide any context about irreversible consequences or when confirmations are needed. The output schema is absent, but the description doesn't clarify return behavior either. An agent has to rely entirely on schema and annotations, which are sufficient for parameters but not for usage context. This is incomplete for a delete operation of this complexity.

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%, meaning all six parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions. The tool description itself provides no additional semantic meaning for the parameters. Since the schema fully describes parameters like todoTaskId and the confirm gate, the baseline 3 applies—the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'Delete a todoTask object.' clearly states the verb (delete) and the resource (todoTask), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete-todo-task-list, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid confusion. A 4 is appropriate because it's clear but doesn't provide any additional context about scope or variations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios. The confirm gate behavior is described in the schema parameter, but the description itself gives no usage context or exclusions. An agent would have no idea from the description alone when this tool is appropriate.

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