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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the exact blast radius: number, comments, followers and links survive, files are permanently removed, and restore reverses everything except files. It also states the permission requirement, which annotations never convey.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with the action, then recoverability, then the irreversible caveat, then the permission note. No filler; every sentence changes how the agent should behave.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the behavioral picture is essentially complete. The only gap is the undocumented ref format, which is a minor omission against otherwise thorough disclosure.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and only says 'by ref'. It implies the argument is an identifier but never states the format or where the ref comes from, leaving ambiguity an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a task by ref') and immediately qualifies the operation as a soft delete. It distinguishes itself from the sibling restore tool by naming fenbs_restore_item as the reversal path, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly tells the caller to justify the deletion first ('Say what you are deleting and why before you do it') and points to fenbs_restore_item for recovery, along with the permission prerequisite. It does not, however, contrast with adjacent destructive siblings like fenbs_archive_completed, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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