delete-task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action is for deletion but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 brief and to the point with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the second provides usage context. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines, but it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), response format, and error handling. For a delete tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'taskId' clearly documented as 'The task ID.' The description doesn't add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('a task from the task list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'cancel-task' or explain how deletion differs from cancellation, which prevents a perfect 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 description provides some guidance with 'Use this to clean up old completed tasks,' which implies a context for usage. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it (e.g., for active tasks vs. completed ones) or mention alternatives like 'cancel-task' for different scenarios, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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