weeek_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 states it deletes a task (implying destructive/irreversible behavior) but doesn't disclose whether the operation is cascade-deleting related entities, whether it removes timers/attachments/subtasks, or whether any confirmation or permission is required. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency 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 a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Delete a task') and provides the identifying mechanism ('by id'). Every word earns its place, though arguably it could add behavioral caveats, but the instruction here is about conciseness, and this is exemplary.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description should compensate by disclosing side effects, irreversibility, and related resources affected (attachments, watchers, time entries, assignees). It does none of that. For a delete operation of this consequence, the single-sentence description is inadequate.

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 mentions 'by id' which aligns with the single required task_id parameter, but with 0% schema coverage, the schema provides no description. However, with only one simple integer parameter and its purpose clearly stated, the description's implication of 'provide the task id to identify which task' adds sufficient meaning. The description doesn't add format or validation details beyond the schema, but the low complexity keeps this at an acceptable middle 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Delete a task by id'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like weeek_complete_task, weeek_update_task, and weeek_uncomplete_task. The purpose is clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the other task-management siblings, making it a solid but not exemplary 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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't state when deletion is appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), or contrast with alternatives like weeek_complete_task or weeek_uncomplete_task. The context of deleting vs. merely altering task state is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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