vikunja_delete_task

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a task by ID' without revealing that deletion is typically irreversible, may cascade to related data, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits crucial context such as irreversibility, potential side effects, or what a successful deletion returns. Since no annotations or output schema exist to fill these gaps, the description is incomplete for a destructive 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'task_id' with description 'Task ID.' The description's 'by ID' is redundant, adding no new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents the parameter and the description offers no additional semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('task') with the scope 'by ID', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vikunja_get_task or vikunja_update_task, though it does not explicitly point out the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or consequences (e.g., task must exist, deletion is permanent) mentioned. The description states only the action itself, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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