purge_celery_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the scope of destruction ('all queued instances'), which is genuinely useful, but omits whether the purge is irreversible, whether it affects running tasks, and what permissions are required.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, and the Args block is brief. The example earns its place by clarifying the expected string format, though the block duplicates a parameter the schema already names.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive, annotation-free operation, the description leaves gaps around irreversibility and preconditions that an agent should know before invoking it.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: task_name is described as the task name to purge and is illustrated with a concrete example, 'dojo.tasks.async_update'. The format/example adds real value beyond a bare string 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?

States a specific verb (purge) and a precisely scoped resource (all queued instances of a specific Celery task), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling purge_celery_queue that presumably clears whole queues. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With siblings like purge_celery_queue, get_celery_queue_details, and get_celery_status in the same surface, the description never says when a task-specific purge is the right choice over a queue-level purge.

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