remove_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it explains that removed tasks go to 'completed_tasks history if it was completed', clarifies it 'can remove any task (completed or not)', and warns that 'removing a parent task removes all its subtasks'. This covers mutation effects and side effects, though it doesn't mention permissions or error handling.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core action, the second adds behavioral details, and the third provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the ID reference into the first sentence.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive operation with cascading effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the mutation behavior and history implications. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would enhance completeness for such a critical tool.

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 schema already documents the 'task_id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond implying its purpose through context (e.g., referencing 'task IDs' from other tools), which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('remove a task from the structure') and resource ('task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'complete_current_task' or 'update_current_task' that modify tasks rather than removing them. The phrase 'cleanup your workspace' reinforces the purpose without being tautological.

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?

It explicitly provides when to use this tool ('to see task IDs, use get_big_picture or get_stack_overview'), which helps differentiate from sibling tools for viewing tasks. The description also implies usage for cleanup, though it doesn't specify when not to use it or name direct alternatives beyond the ID lookup tools.

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