delete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that 'hard=True' permanently deletes and 'hard=False' archives, which explains the two outcomes. However, it does not disclose whether permanent deletion is irreversible or any side effects on dependencies, audit logs, or related tasks. The return confirmation message is also mentioned, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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, using a clear structure with Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the content is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return type, which is a good baseline for a simple deletion tool. However, it lacks contextual details like when to choose soft vs hard delete, and how this relates to sibling tools like 'restore_task'. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but usage guidance gaps remain.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'hard' clearly (permanent vs soft delete), but 'task_id' is only described as 'ID of the task to delete'—adding no nuance beyond the parameter name. Given there are only two parameters and one receives meaningful explanation, the description provides partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 states the core action clearly with 'Delete a task.' It also distinguishes between permanent delete and archive (soft delete) via the 'hard' parameter, which adds nuance beyond a simple delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_task' or 'pause_task', which may have similar lifecycle effects.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'hard' parameter implies two modes, but there is no mention of use cases such as 'use archive for reversible deletions' or 'use permanent delete for data cleanup'. It also fails to mention that archived tasks might be restorable via 'restore_task', a sibling tool.

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