delete_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation (implying destructive mutation) but doesn't mention whether deletions are permanent, reversible, require specific permissions, or have rate limits. The description lacks critical behavioral context like confirmation prompts, side effects, or error handling 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 appropriately brief with two sentences that directly address core functionality. The first sentence establishes purpose, the second clarifies parameter usage. There's no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. However, the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading critical behavioral warnings for a destructive operation.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success confirmation, error responses), whether deletions cascade to related data, or important constraints. The description leaves too many behavioral and operational questions unanswered given the tool's complexity and risk profile.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'task_id' or 'task_name' as identification methods, which partially explains the nested object structure. However, it doesn't clarify that these are properties within an array of items, nor does it explain whether both fields can be used together, if one is preferred, or what happens with ambiguous names. The description adds minimal value 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 the action ('Delete') and resource ('tasks from Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'close_tasks' or 'reopen_tasks' by specifying permanent deletion rather than state changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_projects' or 'delete_sections' beyond the resource type.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_tasks' (which might archive instead of delete) or 'reopen_tasks'. It mentions identification methods ('task_id' or 'task_name') but doesn't explain prerequisites, error conditions, or when deletion is appropriate versus other operations. No explicit when/when-not statements are present.

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