Delete Project Task

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific behavioral context: 'This also deletes the task's assignment records.' This goes beyond the annotation by detailing what gets destroyed. No contradictions; the description consistently aligns with the destructive nature. It could further describe irreversible effects, but the added context is valuable.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second covers side effects and usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an AI agent 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 a simple delete tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, side effects, and when to use. It could mention idempotency (annotations say false) or error handling, but for a core destructive action, the coverage is sufficient. Sibling tools exist but the description does not need to detail them for completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it restates the path structure but does not explain the optional baseUrl/apiKey or the meaning of project/task IDs). No extra value contributed.

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 tool calls the DELETE endpoint for a specific resource (task under project), and adds detail about deleting assignment records. The name and title already indicate deletion, but the description confirms the exact HTTP method and resource path, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like aiproject_update_task or aiproject_delete_project.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use only when the user explicitly wants task deletion.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools (e.g., aiproject_update_task for modifying tasks). The guideline is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

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