Delete SSH Task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds 'soft-deletes' and 'Guarded policy requires content-bound confirmation,' which provides extra context about the deletion being reversible and requiring confirmation. However, it doesn't detail what happens to associated data or the exact confirmation mechanism. No contradiction with 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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It is concise, but the second sentence about 'Guarded policy' is vague and could be more specific. Overall, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a destructive action, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the confirmation parameters, the workspaceId requirement, or the soft-delete behavior in detail. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify what the response will be. The tool is complex enough that more detail is needed.

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 for parameter meaning. The description only mentions 'content-bound confirmation' but does not explain the purpose of taskId, confirm, workspaceId, confirmationText, or confirmation_text. The presence of both confirmationText and confirmation_text is confusing and unexplained. The description fails to clarify which parameters are required or how they interact.

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: 'Soft-deletes a saved SSH task.' It specifies the resource (SSH task) and the operation (delete), and the 'soft-deletes' qualifier adds nuance. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_task_runs' and 'cancel_task_run' by focusing on deleting a saved task, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 mentions 'Guarded policy requires content-bound confirmation,' which implies a usage condition (confirmation needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clear_task_runs' or 'cancel_task_run'. It provides some context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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