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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('JSON success envelope data, often null') and the recommended workflow order, which provides operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is organized into clear sections, but it contains an irrelevant and misleading Chinese trigger sentence that lists unrelated operations ('query, run, rerun, stop, export, view') rather than deletion. This adds noise and could confuse the agent, detracting from conciseness and structural clarity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return type, and workflow. It lacks explicit permission requirements or irreversible consequences, but these are partially implied by 'permanently remove' and the destructiveHint annotation. The off-topic Chinese line is a minor completeness flaw.

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% and the parameter 'worker_task_id' already includes a clear description with example and source ('Obtain from list_worker_tasks'). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the specific action: 'Delete a saved CoreClaw worker task.' The verb 'Delete' and the resource 'saved CoreClaw worker task' are precise and distinguish this from sibling tools like update_worker_task, run_worker_task, or get_worker_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?

The WHEN TO USE section explicitly states the trigger: 'when the user wants to permanently remove a saved task.' It also provides a workflow prerequisite, advising to call list_worker_tasks or get_worker_task first to confirm existence. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions among sibling tools, only generic guidance about not using web search for private data.

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