safe_delete_tasks_by_status

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: it preserves certain categories of tasks (completed work stories, dependencies) and provides a detailed report of deleted vs. preserved. This goes beyond a generic delete statement, though it doesn't mention irreversibility or permissions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the first states the core function and safety guard, the second clarifies the output. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the operation, specific preservation logic, and the return report. It omits minor details like behavior when no tasks match, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and execute.

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 already describes the only parameter (status) with an enum and description, providing 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema supplies, so it merits the baseline score of 3.

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 (delete tasks), the scope (by status), and the distinguishing safety behavior (preserving user stories with completed work and tasks with dependencies). It is easily differentiated from sibling tools like delete_task, which handles individual deletion.

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 implies usage context: use this for bulk deletion by status when safety is needed, as it automatically preserves certain tasks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the safe/preserving language provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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