manus_task_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates 'Permanently delete,' suggesting irreversibility, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), error handling (e.g., task not found), authentication requirements, or return values. More detail is needed for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action. It earns its space without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers the core function and a key restriction. However, it omits crucial context such as return value (e.g., success message), error scenarios, and any prerequisites (e.g., ownership, permissions). For a delete operation, this feels incomplete.

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 single parameter 'task_id' is not described beyond its schema type (string). With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description should clarify the parameter's format, source, or constraints. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no extra semantic value, leaving potential ambiguity (e.g., whether it accepts numeric or UUID formats).

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: 'Permanently delete a task.' It specifies the resource (task) and the scope (permanent deletion), effectively distinguishing it from other task actions like update or stop. The added restriction on agent-related tasks further clarifies what cannot be deleted, making the purpose highly specific.

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 implies when to use (for non-agent tasks) and explicitly states a when-not condition ('Agent-related tasks cannot be deleted'). However, it does not mention alternative tools for related operations (e.g., task_stop, task_update) or provide context on when deletion is appropriate versus other actions.

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