Delete contact task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description repeats 'Destructive' which is consistent. It adds the clarifier that it removes a task specifically from a contact, which clarifies the scope. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors such as permissions or side effects beyond what annotations provide. Since annotations cover the key traits, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 sentence of four words plus 'Destructive.' It is highly concise, with the primary action and target stated first, and no filler. It earns high marks for efficiency.

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 delete operation with two parameters, the description provides the essential information. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent does not know what the tool returns, and the description does not address this. Additionally, it does not mention any caveats like cascading effects. Given the minimal scope, it is adequate but lacks some completeness that would be expected for a destructive tool.

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 has zero description coverage, and the description itself does not elaborate on 'contactId' or 'taskId'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning about formats, validation, or relationships. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to infer the parameters' roles from their names.

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 the target (a task from a contact). It distinguishes this from other delete operations in the sibling list (e.g., delete contact, delete note) by specifying 'contact task'. The added 'Destructive' reinforces the operation's nature. This is specific 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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. However, the naming convention and the action itself make the purpose obvious. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites. The context is implied rather than stated, so this is adequate but not explicit.

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