vk_delete_tasks_88ea47d49817

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that authentication is required, that no request body is usually needed, and that the action is a true deletion rather than a status change. It does not elaborate on permanence or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 tight and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Delete a task'). Subsequent sentences add non-redundant details about the endpoint, body, aliases, and authentication. No filler or repetition, though the density is slightly high.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, auth, body expectation, and alias conventions. It stops short of describing return values or error handling, but those are minor for this proxy tool, and the description is sufficiently complete for agent selection and invocation.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that path and query parameters are top-level fields and that original parameter names also accept camelCase and snake_case aliases, which aids correct invocation beyond the schema's 'Task ID Required'.

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?

Description opens with 'Delete a task' and elaborates 'Deletes a task from a project', clearly specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes deletion from marking a task done. However, it doesn't differentiate among the many similarly named vk_delete_tasks_* siblings or vikunja_delete_task, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description provides contextual details like 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy for DELETE /tasks/{id}' and clarifies that 'This does not mean mark it done'. It also explains that path/query parameters are top-level fields and aliases are accepted. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this raw proxy over alternatives like vikunja_delete_task or other deletion tools.

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