Delete Task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description still earns credit by disclosing what the annotations cannot: deletion happens "at once with no review dialog" and a recurring task is removed "with its whole series." Those two facts materially change an agent's risk calculus before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the critical irreversible behavior is front-loaded right after the identifiers. Every clause carries distinct information: scope, immediacy, recurrence semantics, and two alternative routes.

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 destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: required identifiers, irreversibility, recurring-series consequence, and misidentification handling. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100% and both properties already document their provenance ("from listTasks"), so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The one genuinely additive detail is that passing a recurring task id affects an entire series, but this is framed as behavioral scope rather than parameter format or validation, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the specific verb and resource ("Delete a task") plus the exact identifiers required (taskId + calendarId), and explicitly distinguishes the operation from its nearest siblings: "An event id is refused: use deleteEvent." An agent can tell immediately this is task deletion, not event deletion or task update.

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?

Goes beyond naming alternatives to stating the condition that selects each one: event ids route to deleteEvent, and keeping the task as done routes to updateTask with completed: true. These are true when-to-use-otherwise instructions, not just a list of related tools.

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