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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nevertheless adds genuine context beyond them: that the task's assets are also deleted from storage, which is a cascade effect the agent could not infer from the annotations 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?

Four short sentences with no redundancy: purpose first, then the destructive side effect, then the prerequisite, then the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries information relevant to deciding whether to call the tool.

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 simple three-parameter, single-resource mutation with full annotation and schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite, cascade effect, and irreversibility. It does not mention permission requirements or what a successful response contains, but with no output schema that gap is minor.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including that title and projectName are for confirmation display. The description only echoes the ID requirement and its list_tasks source, which is already in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete a task permanently') and adds scope detail ('removes the task and its assets from storage'). This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like update_task or control_task_timer without needing the schema.

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 states a prerequisite ('Requires the task ID') and routes the agent to list_tasks to obtain it if needed. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the 'cannot be undone' warning effectively signals that this should be a deliberate choice over non-destructive alternatives.

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