todoist_delete_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a task, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling (e.g., if task_id is invalid), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a task by ID') and uses a structured format with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns:'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but misses critical behavioral details like safety warnings or error cases, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'task_id' by specifying it's 'The ID of the task to delete,' which clarifies its role beyond the schema's type information. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this effectively compensates, though it doesn't detail format or validation rules.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a task by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'todoist_delete_project' or 'todoist_complete_task' beyond the obvious resource difference, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete completed tasks if applicable), or comparisons to siblings like 'todoist_complete_task' for task completion instead of deletion.

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