ticktick_delete_task

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by stating 'Delete a task permanently'. The description adds value by warning 'This action cannot be undone', providing crucial behavioral context beyond annotations about irreversibility. It doesn't mention idempotency (covered by annotations) or other traits like rate limits.

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a critical warning. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (annotations show destructiveHint=true) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the irreversible action, but could benefit from mentioning sibling tools or prerequisites. The combination of description, annotations, and schema provides adequate context for safe use.

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 description doesn't mention parameters, but the input schema has 100% description coverage (both 'task_id' and 'project_id' are well-described in the schema). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description's brevity and focus on the action's permanence add some semantic context, justifying a slightly higher score.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a task permanently') with the resource ('task'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_batch_delete_tasks' or 'ticktick_archive_project', which handle multiple tasks or different deletion methods, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 warning 'This action cannot be undone' implies this tool should be used cautiously for permanent deletion, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'ticktick_archive_project' or 'ticktick_batch_delete_tasks'. The context is implied rather than stated directly.

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