tasks_remove

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

Beyond annotations marking the tool as destructive, the description discloses cascade behavior, refusal when dependents exist, and the preview/confirm safety flow. This is substantial behavioral context for a deletion tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the refusal condition, then the confirm workflow. 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?

For a destructive delete operation with annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies the cascade scope, dependency refusal, and two-step confirm procedure. No output schema exists, and the preview behavior is sufficiently signaled for correct invocation.

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 id and confirm parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces confirm as the preview/commit switch but adds little parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: delete an item, including everything below it. The cascade scope to notes and dependencies makes the operation distinct from sibling task tools such as tasks_unlink or tasks_set_status.

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?

It explains the two-step preview/confirm workflow and the precondition that deletion is refused while other items depend on the item. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or tell the agent to unlink dependents first, but the operational context is clear.

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