backlog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the soft-delete semantics (status change vs. removal), data persistence (remains in database), restoration capability, and query visibility rules (excluded from default queries but findable via status:deleted filter). Comprehensive behavioral coverage.

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?

Four sentences with zero redundancy: (1) operation definition, (2) restoration path, (3) permanent removal path, (4) query behavior. Logically sequenced from action to implications to alternatives. Every sentence adds unique value.

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 mutation tool, the description is comprehensive. It compensates for missing annotations by detailing the soft-delete lifecycle, covers the one required parameter (adequately described in schema), and explains visibility implications without requiring an output schema.

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% (the 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema). The description focuses on operational semantics rather than parameter details, which is appropriate given the complete schema coverage. Baseline 3 per rubric.

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 defines the operation as 'Soft-delete a task by setting its status to deleted', providing a specific verb and mechanism. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tool task_purge (permanent removal) and references task_undo (restoration), establishing clear scope boundaries.

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?

Explicitly documents the workflow: deletion is reversible via task_undo, and permanent removal requires task_purge after deletion. This provides clear when-to-use guidance for the soft-delete state and directs users to the appropriate sibling tools for related operations.

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