Delete task

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds behavior beyond them: the cascade delete of dependencies, the refusal condition on subproject UUIDs, and the undo implication ('One undo step'). That is substantive disclosure not present in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and cascade behavior, then routing information. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the create/update routing sentence is a little incidental to a delete operation.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the routing, cascade, refusal, and undo context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, documented at 100% coverage in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description references UUID semantics (what happens when it names a subproject) but adds no format or syntax detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (deletes a task) and adds scope detail (together with its dependencies). It explicitly distinguishes itself from rillsoft_subproject_delete and rillsoft_element_delete, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: refused if the UUID names a subproject, with the alternative named (subproject_delete), plus element_delete as the either-kind option. It also routes create and change to their siblings, covering the full operation set.

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