Dispose an overseer task

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, destructive), the description discloses important behaviors: it refuses to dispose a running user-started task unless force is set, treats name ambiguity as an error, and notes that disposing a finished task is unguarded. This provides critical safety and edge-case context that could affect invocation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant phrasing. Every sentence contributes new information (operation, guard behavior, error case), making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 is self-contained for a destructive, idempotent operation. It covers the core action, parameter semantics, edge cases, and guard conditions. With no output schema, it still offers enough insight for an agent to decide and invoke correctly, especially given the sibling context and annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains both parameters: 'task' can be an id (integer) or name substring (string), and 'force' overrides the refusal for running tasks. It also clarifies that a name matching multiple tasks causes an error, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool stops and removes a task from the list, using the verb 'dispose' and specifying the resource (task) and operation (stop/remove). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like overseer_stop (which only stops) and overseer_restart (which restarts) by focusing on removal.

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 context for when to use the tool (to stop and remove a task) and implies a distinction from overseer_stop by including 'remove,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guard conditions (refusal for running user-started tasks without force) add useful situational guidance.

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