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

Despite destructiveHint=true already flagging the risk, the description adds substantial context: in-flight runs are stopped, a waiting gate is closed, the schedule trigger stops firing, and past runs remain in history. It also discloses the needs_confirmation return, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must anticipate.

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?

Front-loads the action, then concisely covers consequences, the recommended pre-check, and the confirmation flow. Every sentence carries information, though the 'say so before proposing' phrasing is slightly informal.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the possible needs_confirmation return and the fate of in-flight vs. past runs. Complete enough for a destructive tool, though the confirmation flow could be spelled out a touch more.

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 100%, so taskId, workspace, and approvalId are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of needs_confirmation gives indirect context for approvalId, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Deletes a task'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate from siblings like workbench_tasks_freeze or workbench_tasks_update, but the purpose itself is 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?

Provides an explicit precondition workflow: 'Check workbench_tasks_get for live runs and say so before proposing.' It names the alternative tool and the condition that matters before deletion, though it stops short of stating when-not to delete.

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