remove_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: the soft-delete mechanism (tasks remain in system), the dot-notation for task IDs, the simplified response format (excluding specific fields), and how soft-deleted tasks are handled in 'get_tasks' (excluded by default unless a parameter is set). It does not cover aspects like error handling or permissions, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core action and key details (soft-delete, task ID format, response format). Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it 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 (mutation with soft-delete behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the operation, task ID format, response format, and interaction with 'get_tasks'. However, it lacks details on error scenarios (e.g., what happens if 'goalId' is invalid) and does not describe the output structure beyond mentioning simplified objects, which could be improved since there's no 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as mentioning 'task IDs use a dot-notation' which aligns with the schema's example, but does not provide additional meaning or usage details for parameters like 'goalId' or 'deleteChildren'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('soft-delete multiple tasks from a goal'), distinguishes it from permanent deletion by explaining tasks are 'marked as deleted but remain in the system', and differentiates from siblings like 'get_tasks' by focusing on removal rather than retrieval or creation.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for soft-deleting tasks) and implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning 'get_tasks' with 'includeDeletedTasks' for viewing deleted tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it directly to other sibling tools like 'add_tasks' or 'complete_task_status'.

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