sp_delete_task

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core behavior (deletion) but fails to disclose important consequences such as irreversibility, whether related data (e.g., subtasks, comments) is also deleted, or any confirmation steps. Given no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate because it covers the basic action but lacks depth on side effects.

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 one short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. It is concise and to the point, but could be slightly improved by adding a brief note about irreversibility or a cross-reference to archive for alternatives, giving it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of deletion on related entities, the irreversibility, or any confirmation expectations, which an agent needs to know to call it safely. The presence of a sibling like sp_archive_task makes the lack of guidance on when to delete versus archive a notable gap.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'id' parameter ('Task id'). The tool description adds no extra detail about the format or semantics of the id beyond what the schema says, so the baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 Super Productivity task' clearly states the verb (delete) and the resource (Super Productivity task), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by the specific action of deletion, as opposed to create, update, list, or archive.

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 like sp_archive_task, which might be a less destructive alternative. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as the task existing or whether the user needs to be the owner, nor does it warn about irreversibility, which would be crucial for a deletion operation.

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