delete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical non-obvious behavior: deleting a still-running task cancels/stops it rather than just removing a record. It also documents the return shape, though it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and what happens to partial results of a cancelled task.

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 lead sentence and the dual-purpose sentence are well front-loaded, but the parenthetical How-To quote restates the sentence that precedes it verbatim in meaning, and the Returns block duplicates an output schema that already exists. Roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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 one-parameter deletion tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, dual semantics, and the destructive side effect of cancelling running tasks. Missing only operational context such as permissions, irreversibility, and error conditions for an unknown or already-completed task_id.

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 0% — the single task_id parameter has only a type and title. The description's "task_id: Task ID number" and the example value 11111 add marginal format context but do not compensate for the coverage gap (no source of the ID, no relation to IDs returned by list_tasks).

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 and resource ("Delete a task record from FortiManager's task list") and immediately clarifies the dual semantics: it removes a completed task's record or cancels/stops a running one. It also names its sibling family (list_tasks/get_task/wait_for_task), so an agent can place it precisely.

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?

Explicitly describes two distinct use cases (cleanup of finished tasks vs. cancelling a running task) and identifies the complementary tools. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it — e.g., prefer wait_for_task when you intend to let a job finish — so it is clear context without explicit exclusion rules.

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