task_delete

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the soft-delete behavior: the row is kept, hidden from listings, and restorable via task_restore. This directly explains why destructiveHint is false and adds operational context the annotations don't provide.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core meaning, then add the scope restriction and the restore behavior. Each sentence contributes new, non-redundant information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what mutates, what is preserved, the visibility effect, and the recovery path. The annotations already cover write/read-only and idempotence, so nothing essential is missing.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain `deleted_by` or expand on `id`, and while `reason` has a schema description, the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 the exact action and resource ('Remove a task') and immediately clarifies it is a soft delete, which differentiates it from permanent-delete tools. It also names the inverse tool (task_restore), helping an agent distinguish this from restoration and other delete siblings.

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 explicitly scopes usage to 'todo' tasks and warns that further-along tasks should not be removed because their history matters. It does not name an explicit alternative tool for non-todo tasks, but the boundary is clear enough that an agent can decide against calling it.

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