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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait the name hides: the deletion is non-permanent, so the record remains recoverable. It says nothing about permissions, side effects on related data (comments, checklist items), or behavior on an already-deleted task, so significant behavioral ground is uncovered.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted clauses, and the key semantic (soft delete) is front-loaded. Slightly weakened only by the 'Use this to' preamble, which adds no 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral fact (reversibility) but omits return behavior, permission requirements, and interaction with already-deleted tasks. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so board_id and task_number are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond that, making the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource (delete a task) and, crucially, disambiguates the operation by stating it is a soft delete ('mark a task as deleted without permanent removal'). This separates it conceptually from a hard-delete, though it does not name the sibling restore_task that would undo it.

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 phrase 'Use this to...' implies the intended scenario, and the soft-delete wording hints at when to prefer it over permanent removal. However, it never states prerequisites, alternative tools (e.g. restore_task), or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving usage largely inferable rather than explicit.

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