contacts_delete_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as irreversibility, what happens to related data, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations but also does not enhance them.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two words, which is too terse. It lacks any structure or additional details, making it under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It does not front-load any useful information beyond the bare action.

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 mutation tool with two required parameters and destructive behavior, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain the relationship between contactId and taskId, error conditions, or what the result of the deletion is. The schema covers parameter names but not the semantics of how they interact. This is inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema ('Task Id' and 'Contact Id'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 'Delete Task' is a clear verb+resource combination that unambiguously indicates the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like contacts_delete_contact or contacts_delete_note by specifying 'Task'. However, it omits that it deletes a task associated with a specific contact, which is only implied by the tool name and parameters.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the taskId must belong to the contactId), no alternatives, and no exclusions. The description simply states the action without any context for selection or invocation.

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