delete_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful qualifier that removal is permanent ('безповоротно') and that the target is the planner file, which tells the agent the effect persists on disk. It says nothing about error behavior for a missing id or whether any confirmation step exists.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the irreversible/file qualifier attached parenthetically. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is close to under-specification rather than economy.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already flag the mutation, the description covers the essentials. It still omits what happens on failure, whether the id must be pre-resolved via get_task or list_tasks, and any recovery path, which matters for an irreversible operation.

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 0% — the single parameter is documented only as a string titled 'Id'. The description restates that the id identifies the task but adds no format, source, or validity information (numeric, UUID, where to obtain it), so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb (delete) and resource (task) and adds the scope qualifier 'by id', so an agent knows exactly what will be removed. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as edit_task or move_task, which the agent must infer from the names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative operation (for example, undoing or archiving instead of deleting). The only implied guidance is the self-evident fact that deletion applies to tasks identified by id.

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