locations_delete_recurring_task

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—it does not state that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or whether it cascades to related data. It contributes nothing beyond 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 single sentence is minimal but is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It simply repeats the tool name, so it does not earn its place by adding value. It is not verbose, but it is also not informative.

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 with no output schema, the description does not explain what happens on success or failure, whether the task must exist, or any side effects. The agent must rely solely on the schema and annotations, which leaves critical gaps about the operation's behavior.

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%, with both parameters (id and locationId) documented in the schema: 'Recurring Task Id' and 'Location Id Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted.' The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 Recurring Task' is a direct tautology of the tool name, restating the verb and resource without adding any new information about what a recurring task is, what deletion entails, or any nuance. It provides no distinction from other delete operations (e.g., locations_delete_custom_field).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like locations_update_recurring_task, locations_get_recurring_task_by_id, or locations_task_search. No prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions are provided.

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