vk_delete_tasks_a75cf5df971f

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that authentication is required and explains the raw proxy behavior including top-level path/query parameters and alias conventions. However, it does not describe side effects beyond deletion, response format, or error behavior, leaving gaps 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 concise and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by endpoint details, payload handling, aliases, and authentication. Each sentence adds value, though the phrasing 'optional body field' is a bit ambiguous but still compact.

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?

Given the complex raw proxy nature and lack of output schema/annotations, the description covers key aspects: endpoint, body, aliases, and auth. However, it omits crucial details like valid relationKind values and the structure of the relation object, and the body optionality contradiction undermines completeness. Schema property descriptions partially compensate but still leave the relation type undefined.

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 description adds useful context about top-level fields and camelCase/snake_case aliases, but it states 'optional body field' while the schema marks body as required, creating a direct contradiction that could mislead the agent. Additionally, it does not clarify which of the path parameters are mandatory despite the schema property descriptions saying 'Required' but not being in the required array.

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 'Remove a task relation' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the exact REST endpoint (DELETE /tasks/{taskID}/relations/{relationKind}/{otherTaskID}), distinguishing it from sibling task deletion tools. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' which implies a low-level tool, but does not name higher-level alternatives or state when to choose this over them. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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