Remove a finished task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable detail about exactly which files are removed (metadata, log, status, script) and the 'no longer running' condition, though it does not address irreversibility or permissions directly.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action and the affected artifacts immediately.

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 destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, the description supplies the necessary context: what is deleted and the precondition. It could optionally mention that deletion is irreversible, but the annotations and scope make it sufficiently complete.

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?

There is one parameter ('id') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource ('metadata, log, status and script files of a task'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like task_stop or delete_path, so it falls short of 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?

The phrase 'task that is no longer running' implies a precondition for use, but the description does not state when to use task_remove versus task_stop or delete_path, nor does it give explicit exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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