Clear tasks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful non-obvious scope context ('memory is not touched', project-level scoping), but it never states what happens to the tasks contained in a deleted group or whether the deletion is reversible — the most important behavioral question for a destructive tool.

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?

Two short sentences, scope statement first and the non-obvious memory caveat second. Nothing is wasted and the critical information is front-loaded.

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?

A single optional param with full schema coverage and destructive annotations lowers the bar, and the memory caveat helps. Still, for an irreversible bulk delete the description omits the fate of contained tasks and any confirmation/irreversibility note, leaving a meaningful gap.

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% and the schema itself says 'Omit to clear every group'. The description restates the same semantics at a slightly higher level but adds no format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (task groups), including both granularities: a single group or all groups in the project. 'Memory is not touched' cleanly differentiates it from memory-deleting siblings like forget.

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 two operating modes are implied by 'one task group, or all task groups of this project,' and the memory caveat hints at when a sibling is the better choice. However, no alternative tool is named and there's no guidance on prerequisites such as whether tasks in a group must be completed first.

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