rlm_task_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool archives (not hard delete), is admin only, and has status constraints with force override. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining behavior for different statuses, but does not detail what 'archive' entails (e.g., reversibility, side effects) or return values.

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 highly concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then bullet list of use cases, then constraints. Front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavioral aspects like status constraints and force flag. However, it lacks information about return values (e.g., success indication) and what 'archive' means (reversible? implications for related data?). This omission reduces completeness for a delete operation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions: it explains the force parameter's use case but the schema already says 'Force archive even if task is COMPLETED or IN_PROGRESS (admin only)'. No significant semantic addition.

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 tool archives a task from a swarm, specifies it is admin only, and lists specific use cases (remove cancelled/obsolete, clean up test, remove erroneous tasks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rlm_htask_delete by mentioning 'legacy task surface' and 'canonical HierarchicalTask N3 task'.

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 explicit usage scenarios (use for removing cancelled/obsolete tasks, test tasks, erroneous tasks) and conditions (only PENDING/FAILED/CANCELLED by default, force=true for COMPLETED/IN_PROGRESS). However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternatives like rlm_htask_delete.

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