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

The description says the task is marked as deleted 'without permanent removal', but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true. This is a direct behavioral inconsistency: the annotation signals destructive behavior while the description frames the operation as non-permanent. No additional behavioral context about permissions, side effects, or restoration is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's use. It contains no repetitive or low-value content.

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, the description gives only the soft-delete intent and omits any mention of permissions, side effects, or restoration. More importantly, that intent conflicts with destructiveHint=true, leaving the agent with an unreliable behavioral picture.

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 the schema already explains board_id and task_number. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 clear verb and resource: marking a task as deleted. It also clarifies the operation is non-permanent, which is useful scope detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as restore_task or other delete_* tools.

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 mark a task as deleted without permanent removal' gives a clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use the tool or point to restore_task or any permanent-deletion alternative, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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