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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what gets removed: the task record plus related schedules, occurrences, reminders, and attachments. This gives the agent a clear picture of the destructive scope, though it could have explicitly noted irreversibility.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The usage condition is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds necessary behavioral detail about cascaded deletion.

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 destructive single-target tool, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what will be affected. An output schema exists for return values, so the description's omission of response details is acceptable.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description adds the context that this targets an existing task and performs permanent deletion, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the action as a permanent/hard delete of an existing Familia task, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from softer operations like cancellation by explicitly emphasizing 'permanently delete' and 'hard delete'.

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 description states a clear condition for use: only when the user explicitly asks for permanent deletion. It lacks an explicit mention of the alternative 'cancel' tool for non-permanent cases, but the 'only when' phrasing provides a strong exclusion criterion.

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