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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: it is a soft delete with a 30-day recycle-bin window, firing stops immediately, post-window deletion is permanent, and credit spend is not returned. That is exactly the consequence detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 earning its place: the action, the reversibility window with the restoring tool, and the irreversibility plus billing consequence. The most decision-relevant fact (it goes to a recycle bin, not gone) is front-loaded.

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 mutation with no output schema, it covers consequences and recovery well. Minor omissions remain — no mention of behavior on an already-deleted or nonexistent id, or what the response returns — though idempotentHint covers part of that.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Task id (UUID), as returned by create_task or list_tasks"), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id, which meets the baseline-3 expectation but no more.

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?

"Move the task to the recycle bin" is a specific verb + resource with precise semantics (soft delete, not a hard delete), which cleanly separates it from the sibling delete_destination. It also names restore_task as the counterpart, so the agent can map the delete/recover pair without opening a 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?

Clearly establishes the context of use plus the recovery path: recoverable for 30 days via restore_task, unrecoverable afterwards, credits not refunded. The notable gap is that it does not route to pause_task, the sibling for "stop firing temporarily" — an agent might delete when pausing is what the user wants.

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