delete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a task permanently' signals mutation and irreversibility, but doesn't disclose what happens to related data (comments, attachments, watchers, dependencies), whether the operation requires specific permissions, or whether any confirmation or guard is in place. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short (5 words), which is concise but borders on under-specification for a destructive tool with parameters. A single sentence with no wasted words earns credit for brevity, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential behavioral and usage context. It's not 'efficiently sized'—it's barely specified.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters (team_id, custom_task_ids), the description is inadequate. It should explain the optional parameters' purpose (e.g., custom_task_ids may be required for teams using custom IDs), warn about cascading effects/irreversibility, and note any permission requirements. The current description leaves the agent to guess at significant operational details.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only task_id is documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter information whatsoever. The parameters team_id and custom_task_ids are undocumented in both the schema and the description. Given the low coverage and no compensating description, the description fails to help an agent understand how to construct a correct, complete call.

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 task permanently' clearly states a specific verb (delete) and resource (task) with the important qualifier 'permanently' indicating irreversibility. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_task_dependency and delete_task_link, which delete related entities rather than the task itself.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_task, duplicate_task, or move_task_to_list. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must exist, permissions required), nor any warning about when NOT to use it (e.g., when you only want to archive or move a task). The 'permanently' qualifier implies finality but doesn't explicitly state when this is the appropriate choice.

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