delete_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses soft delete/recoverability, permission requirements, polymorphic task_id interpretation, cascading vs promoting subtask behavior, and a two-phase confirm gate. This is highly transparent.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds necessary detail: permissions, task_id semantics, subtask handling, related tools, and the confirm gate. No fluff or repetition.

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 complex delete operation with a polymorphic parameter, subtask edge cases, and a confirmation gate, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects. Given the output schema exists, return values need no explanation. It also integrates with sibling tools via cross-references.

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%, and the description compensates fully: it explains task_id accepts integer or string title (searching current project) and clarifies confirm's default false provides preview without deletion. This goes beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Deletes task' with specific details: soft delete, trash move, recoverable. It distinguishes from siblings like archive_task, restore_task, and list_trashed_tasks by explicitly naming them for recovery and listing, and by explaining the soft delete behavior.

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 explicit usage context: requires admin permission, explains task_id can be integer ID or title, details WBS vs non-WBS subtask handling, and defines the confirm gate for preview vs actual deletion. Also names restoration and listing tools as alternatives.

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