Google Tasks 삭제

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true. The description adds '영구 삭제' (permanently delete) and '되돌릴 수 없습니다' (irreversible), providing context beyond the annotation about the severity of the action. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear two-sentence introduction, a concise parameter list, and a practical example. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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 deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and an example workflow. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though the optional listId could be explained in more depth.

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 coverage is 100% for both id and listId, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter descriptions from the schema without adding new semantic details, though the example illustrates usage. It does not fully compensate for any gaps.

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 'Google Tasks에서 할 일을 영구 삭제합니다' (permanently deletes a task) and '되돌릴 수 없습니다' (cannot be undone), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tasks_update and tasks_complete by focusing on 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 example workflow 'tasks_list()로 id 확인 -> tasks_delete({id: "..."})' provides clear context on when to use the tool (after listing tasks to obtain the ID). However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but the destructive nature is highlighted.

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