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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: it is destructive in terms of visibility but not permanent, because 'the record is retained.' It also explicitly states a failure condition ('Fails if it was already deleted'), which the annotations do not convey. This adds value beyond the structured metadata.

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, each carrying essential information: the operation, the side effect, and the failure mode. No filler or repetition. The description is front-loaded with the core behavior.

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 single-parameter delete operation with a rich output schema and clear annotations, this description is nearly complete. It covers the operation, the soft-delete nuance, and a failure condition. It doesn't mention whether the delete is reversible or how to restore, but that is beyond what is needed to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema presumably covers return values.

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 documents 'id' well. The description's phrase 'Soft-delete a task' confirms the parameter is the task identifier, and the failure condition clarifies the id must reference an existing, non-deleted task. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's terse 'Task id from create_task or list_tasks.'

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 clearly states the specific verb + resource ('Soft-delete a task') and immediately distinguishes it from a hard delete by noting the record is retained. This differentiates it well from sibling tools like delete_recurring_task or delete_document, which operate on different resources.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want a task to disappear from list_tasks but still be recoverable. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'Soft-delete' and the contrast with leaving list_tasks provide a clear usage context. A sibling tool like complete_task exists, but the distinction is inferable.

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