delete_task

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is destructive and idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the name, such as permanence, cascading effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions. Since annotations carry most of the burden, a score of 2 reflects minimal added value.

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 extremely concise (3 words) and to the point. It does not waste words, which aids quick scanning. However, it could be slightly more helpful with additional context without becoming verbose. A score of 4 reflects good conciseness but room for minor informative additions.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns upon success or failure, whether the task must exist, or any side effects. While annotations cover destructive and idempotent hints, the agent lacks information about expected outcomes and error handling. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, which already describes its purpose. The tool description does not add any further meaning or constraints to the parameter. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and description adds no extra value.

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 'Delete a task' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating that the tool deletes a task object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_affiliation' or 'delete_comment' by specifying the target resource 'task'. This meets the highest standard for purpose clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_task' or 'deactivate_teacher'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of the task), conditions, or when not to use it. The agent receives no context about appropriate use cases.

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