taskwarrior_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it clarifies that deletion is reversible via 'undo' (important behavioral trait) and that tasks are 'marked as deleted' rather than permanently erased. This enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage notes, parameter explanation, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with recovery), rich annotations (e.g., destructiveHint, idempotentHint), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Confirmation message'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral nuances, and parameters adequately without needing to detail return values.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter in the 'Args' section and providing an example ('task_id="5"'). However, it doesn't add deep semantic meaning beyond what's implied by the schema (e.g., format details or constraints), so it meets the baseline for adequate but not exceptional coverage.

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 specific action ('Delete a task from Taskwarrior') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'taskwarrior_complete' or 'taskwarrior_modify' by specifying it's for removal rather than status changes or edits. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to remove a task') and mentions recovery via 'undo', which implicitly references the sibling 'taskwarrior_undo'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'taskwarrior_complete' for marking done) or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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