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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating the deletion is irreversible and 'the task and its fields are gone for good.' It adds a practical caution to verify the taskId before calling, which is valuable guidance for a destructive action. There is no contradiction with the 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 two sentences long and front-loads the core action with no wasted words. It efficiently covers the target, irreversibility, ID sourcing, and the PREPARING-draft constraint.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for safe invocation. It explains what is deleted, from what object, under what status condition, and how to get the required ID. The lack of a return-value description does not hinder correct usage.

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?

The input schema only provides 'taskId' as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by indicating that taskId comes from get_ut and should be double-checked before deletion. It does not fully explain what a task is, but for a single-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a task from a draft UT.' It also adds the scope limitation 'Only works on tasks of PREPARING drafts,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like update_task, add_task, and delete_use_case.

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 gives a clear condition for use: only tasks of PREPARING drafts can be deleted. It also advises the agent to double-check the taskId and tells it where to obtain that ID (from get_ut), which is a useful prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the operational constraint is clear.

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