Taskmaster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'permanent', which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if removal is reversible, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid IDs), or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation). For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('remove') and key detail ('permanently'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, reversibility), usage guidance relative to siblings, and output expectations. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for safe agent operation.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'id' format beyond '5' or '5.2', or explain 'projectRoot' purpose). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('remove'), target ('task or subtask'), and effect ('permanently from the tasks list'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_subtask' by specifying it handles both tasks and subtasks, and from 'delete_tag' by focusing on tasks rather than tags.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_subtask' or 'clear_subtasks'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing task ID, or exclusions, like whether it works on completed tasks. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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