delete_task

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still contributes a non-obvious behavioral rule: deletion is blocked while declarations are attached. It does not, however, describe error behavior beyond that or the confirm guard, which lives only in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the one non-obvious constraint. Nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and the annotations plus description cover the destructive nature and the declaration precondition. What remains thin is failure/auth context, but for a simple single-target delete this is close to sufficient.

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 all three parameters including the mandatory 'confirm=true' guard and the project disambiguator are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 a specific verb and resource ('Delete a task'), which cleanly separates it from the create/update/get/list_task siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other delete_* tools, but the resource name makes the target unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation, and the description adds a useful precondition ('refuses while declarations are attached'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it names no alternatives and gives no guidance on prerequisites such as permissions or the required confirm flag.

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