Delete a task

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description reinforces irreversibility in plain language and adds an agent-facing confirmation step, which is behavior beyond the flag. It also names the returned fields, giving the agent a lightweight expectation of the response side-effect.

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?

Three short sentences, with the destructive nature and confirmation requirement front-loaded ahead of the return note. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, the confirmation step, and the return shape. Only failure modes (e.g., deleting an already-removed or unknown task_id) are left unmentioned, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter documents both its name and the 24-character hex pattern, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only says 'by id', which adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the structured field.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Permanently deletes one task by id'), and the singular 'one task' plus the resource name separates it from siblings like heliyos_notes_delete and heliyos_records_delete without needing the schema. It stops short of naming an alternative tool such as heliyos_tasks_update for soft changes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives one concrete precondition, 'confirm with the user first', which is real when-to-use guidance for a destructive call. It does not cover when not to delete (e.g., deferring to heliyos_tasks_update) or any prerequisite about task ownership or state, so the guidance is implied rather than complete.

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