Delete task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds crucial specifics: permanence ('cannot be undone'), refusal behavior for repeating tasks, and the risk of deleting the whole series. This goes beyond annotation-covered ground.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with the destructive nature, then key caveat, then alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and coverage by annotations/schema, the description addresses the main decision points: permanence, repeating-task hazard, and alternative for finished work. Minor gap: no mention of return value, but for a delete tool this is often non-critical and output schema is absent.

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 covers all parameter descriptions, but the description adds semantic value for force by explaining why it exists (avoid deleting entire repeating series). This context is not in the schema and helps the agent decide when to set force=true.

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-resource pair ('permanently delete a task') and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by recommending complete_tasks for finished work. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance and explicit exclusion: 'Prefer complete_tasks for finished work.' Also explains the conditional use of force for repeating tasks, which is a critical usage nuance.

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