Delete the worktree of a finished or cancelled task to free server resources, while preserving durable task metadata for audit and record-keeping.
Remove the worktree of a COMPLETED or CANCELLED Task while preserving durable Task metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-dev.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Remove the worktree'. It adds valuable context beyond the annotation by clarifying exactly what is destroyed (the worktree) and what is preserved (durable metadata), which mitigates the destructive impact. No contradiction with 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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and key conditions. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or repetition. It is an exemplar of concise, effective tool documentation.
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 core purpose and destructive scope, but lacks details such as behavior when the task is not in COMPLETED/CANCELLED state, idempotency, prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), or any error conditions. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a destructive annotation, it is adequate for typical usage but leaves edge cases undefined.
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?
The input schema has one parameter (task_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the parameter at all. It does not explain how to obtain or format task_id, nor does it clarify the parameter's role beyond the schema's minimal type constraint. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics largely undocumented.
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 the worktree') and the resource ('of a Task'), with explicit preconditions (COMPLETED or CANCELLED). It also specifies what is preserved ('durable Task metadata'), making it distinct from sibling tools like task.cancel or task.resume. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.
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 a clear condition for use: only for tasks that are COMPLETED or CANCELLED. This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'do not use for active tasks'. It gives enough context for an agent to infer appropriate usage, but falls short of explicit routing to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.