delete_task

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the operation is permanent, requires a special hard-delete configuration, and requires the confirmation phrase. This helps the agent understand the precise behavioral contract without contradicting the annotations.

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, focused sentence that places the core purpose first and adds prerequisites immediately. There is no filler or repeated schema information; every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the essential context for a two-parameter destructive call: what it does, when it is available, and what confirmation string is required. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, little else is needed. It could be slightly more explicit about the task_id field's own semantics, but the overall context is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It specifies the confirmation format ('DELETE TASK <id>'), which gives meaning to the confirmation parameter, but task_id is only referenced implicitly as the <id> placeholder. It does not fully explain the relationship between task_id and confirmation beyond that example.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a task.' The word 'permanently' signals irreversible destructive action and clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like archive_task or move_task_to_stage. An agent can identify the tool's function immediately.

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 gives important prerequisites: hard-delete config and confirmation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling alternatives such as archive_task, and it does not state any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions. The usage context is mostly implied by the word 'permanently.'

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