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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by reinforcing 'permanent and cannot be undone' and by disclosing the approval-handling model (client-side confirmation outside this call), which is behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the action, then scope, then consequences, then the confirmation policy. All sentences carry useful information, though the closing sentence about when to ask in chat is longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers scope, permanence, batch deletion, and the human-approval contract, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'omit for personal tasks' semantics. The description restates this without adding syntax, ID format, or batch-size guidance, so baseline 3 is 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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Delete one or more tasks by IDs.' It names the key input (IDs) and the scoping dimension (project vs personal), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from xtiles_create_tasks and xtiles_update_task.

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?

Gives explicit context: supply projectId for project tasks, omit for personal tasks, and states the confirmation policy (client asks the user, so don't re-ask in chat when the target is named). It does not compare against sibling delete tools (e.g. xtiles_delete_page) or state when not to delete, so it stops short of a 5.

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