Delete a task

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the meaningful irreversible context: 'A CalDAV server keeps no history: this cannot be undone.' It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not explain the two-step confirm_token flow implied by the schema.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs both an important consequence and an alternative tool reference.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover destructive/idempotent behavior and return values. However, the confirm_token parameter strongly implies a confirmation workflow, and the description never tells the agent to call once for a token and then call again to confirm deletion, leaving a notable usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description is not required to restate parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already documents id and confirm_token clearly.

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?

Opens with 'Removes a task' – a specific verb and resource, leaving no doubt about the operation. It also distinguishes itself from complete_task, preventing confusion with the most similar sibling.

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?

Explicitly states the intended purpose and gives a clear when-not alternative: 'To mark a task done instead, use complete_task.' This is direct routing guidance versus the main competing sibling.

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