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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds the confirmation requirement, which is real operational context not captured by annotations, but it does not state permanence/reversibility or what happens to any linked data, leaving a modest gap.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the alternative and the safety instruction in priority order. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers action, alternative, and confirmation. The only missing piece an agent would want is whether deletion is permanent or recoverable.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema field already carries the 'from list-tasks' provenance note. The description adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the schema does the work and the baseline of 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 ('Deletes a task') and scopes it to the planner, so it is unambiguous against the many delete-* siblings that each target a different resource (guests, vendors, expenses). It also separates the delete path from the update path by naming update-task explicitly.

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 names the alternative tool and the exact condition that should route the agent there ('To finish a task, use update-task with status done instead'), which is a genuine when-to-use-this-vs-that rule. It further imposes a procedural guard ('Confirm with the user first') so the agent knows deletion should not be issued unilaterally.

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