taiga_task_custom_attributes_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Delete' without disclosing the destructive permanence, potential side effects on existing values, required permissions, or failure conditions. This is insufficient transparency for a deletion operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and target efficiently.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description is adequate but lacks important context about the consequences of deletion (e.g., what happens to values assigned to tasks) and any response/return information. With no output schema, this leaves some gaps.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('Custom attribute ID'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, but the schema is sufficient.

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 ('Delete') and identifies the resource ('custom attribute definition for task'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like custom attribute update/get or value tools. It is unambiguous about the scope (task custom attributes).

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 explicitly states the target ('for task'), providing clear context for when to use this tool vs. similar tools for epic/userstory/issue custom attributes. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score for explicit guidance.

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