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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the crucial behavioral fact: deletion is soft, retained 30 days server-side, and recoverable. It stops short of stating permission requirements, idempotency for a nonexistent id, or what happens to subtasks/recurrences tied to the task.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the recoverability fact and the alternative-use case both front-loaded rather than buried.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it destroys, that it is reversible for 30 days, and when not to use it. Missing only permission/edge-case behavior and a note on the id's origin.

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 50%: the workspace parameter is well documented in the schema, while id is undocumented but self-evident as the target task identifier. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, so the schema does nearly all the work — baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level.

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+resource ('Delete a task') and immediately clarifies a key property of the deletion. It also explicitly names the sibling it is often confused with (update_task) so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 gives an explicit when-not with the exact alternative: to finish a task, use update_task with done: true. That is the single most likely mis-invocation for a delete tool, and the description routes the agent away from it with a concrete call shape.

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