drop_taskRemove an unnecessary task from the shared plan and record why it was dropped. Use recalibrate instead when replacing the full remaining plan.
Drop a Task that is no longer needed, with a reason. To replace the whole remaining plan, recalibrate instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not state whether dropping is reversible, what happens to the goal's progress accounting, whether the task disappears from history, or any permission requirement. It only implies that a justification must accompany the drop, which is thin for a mutation operation with zero annotation coverage.
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 no filler, and the primary action plus its condition lead the description ahead of the alternative. Every clause carries information.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid: consequences of the drop, how the task is referenced, and how it differs from complete_task. It is adequate only at the level of naming the action.
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 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. 'With a reason' maps a rationale to the reason field, but it says nothing about how to identify the task argument (ID, name, or reference) or any format constraint.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Drop a Task') plus the condition that qualifies it ('no longer needed'), which is more than a restatement of the title. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts the nearest sibling, complete_task, so an agent must infer the drop-vs-complete distinction on its own.
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?
Gives a clear when-condition ('no longer needed') and routes a related-but-different scenario to an alternative ('to replace the whole remaining plan, recalibrate instead'). The weakness is that the alternative named, 'recalibrate', is not present in the sibling list, and the more likely confusion with complete_task is left unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.