delete_task

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

The description clearly discloses that deletion is not immediate or permanent: the task is moved to the trashbin and recoverable within the retention period. This adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, which only indicate destructiveHint. It also states the return is a confirmation message, and there is no contradiction with the 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 compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by a brief behavioral note and a neatly structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 two-parameter tool with a simple return value and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what happens on deletion, how to restore, how to find UIDs, and what the response will be. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It explains list_id as a task list identifier with an example ('tasks'), and task_uid as the UID to delete while pointing to get_tasks for discovery. Both parameters receive clear semantic guidance beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 opens with 'Delete a task by its UID', a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the deletion is a soft delete into the trashbin, distinguishing it from permanent deletion tools like delete_trash_item. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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 useful context: the task goes to the calendar trashbin and can be restored from the Nextcloud web interface, implying when soft-delete is appropriate. It also instructs to 'Use get_tasks to find UIDs,' which helps the agent acquire required input. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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