Delete task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is covered. The description adds meaningful scope context with 'for everyone', clarifying this is a shared/global removal rather than a personal view change. It stops short of stating irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether dependent items (assignments, comments) are affected.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with zero filler, and the shared-impact qualifier is front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers what it does and its blast radius ('for everyone'). What remains missing (irreversibility, ambiguity handling on title input) is minor for this complexity level.

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 one documented parameter ('Task id or exact title'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about resolution rules when a title is ambiguous or fuzzy-matched, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a task') with scope ('from the board for everyone'), so an agent immediately understands the operation. It doesn't reference any sibling (e.g., update_task vs delete_task boundaries), keeping it below a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer update_task or a soft-close alternative, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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