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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by naming exactly what is destroyed (comments, checklists, attachments), declaring irreversibility, and disclosing the dry-run preview semantics of the confirm flag. This is real behavioral disclosure that the agent could not derive from the structured fields alone.

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-loaded with the destructive scope and irreversibility, then the confirm requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the cascade scope, irreversibility, and the confirm/preview contract an agent needs to call it safely. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements or whether the deletion can be undone via restore_task.

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 50%: the confirm parameter is already fully documented in the schema, and the description largely restates it rather than adding new semantics. cardId is never mentioned by name or clarified in the description, so the undocumented half of the schema is not compensated for.

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 (permanently deletes a task) and adds the cascade scope — comments, checklists, attachments. The word 'permanently' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like archive_task and delete_card_template, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives a concrete invocation rule — confirm: true is required, otherwise you get a preview — which is useful operational guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over archive_task (reversible) or when deletion vs. archiving is appropriate, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative question is left to inference.

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