remove_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that removal is a two-step proposal/confirmation process. It also warns that removing a task affects binaries that reference it. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or rate limits, but the key non-obvious behavior is exposed.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action, then the required confirmation step, then the side-effect warning in a logical order.

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 proposal mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential workflow and side-effect context. It is nearly complete, though it could add a note about where task names come from or whether the proposal can be rejected.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the sole parameter task_name is fully documented in the schema as the snake_case name of the task to remove. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 a specific action and resource: proposing removal of an existing task. It distinguishes the tool from direct removal tools by clarifying that it creates a pending proposal, and it names resolve_proposal as the confirmation step.

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 clearly indicates the usage context: propose removal here, then call resolve_proposal to confirm. It does not explicitly say when not to use this versus siblings like remove_binary or remove_record, but the workflow and the affected resource are made clear.

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