runrunit_delete_task

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

With no annotations, the description needs to disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to subtasks or comments, and any permission requirements. It only says 'Delete,' leaving the destructive implications and side effects unspecified.

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 single sentence is concise and contains no filler, but it is also underspecified for a destructive operation. It lacks any front-loaded caveats or contextual detail that would help an agent use the tool safely.

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 simple one-parameter tool the schema covers the required id, so the description is minimally viable. However, absent annotations and output schema, useful context such as irreversibility and side effects is missing.

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%: the id parameter is described as 'Task ID' and marked required. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the 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?

The description states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'a task on Runrun.it,' so the basic purpose is clear. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no distinguishing detail beyond what the name already conveys.

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 guidance about when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It neither explains when deletion is appropriate nor warns against using it when another task-related tool might be relevant.

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