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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses soft-delete semantics, the 30-day restore window, the eventual physical deletion by a scheduled job, and the restore_task escape hatch. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 trigger, then behavior, then the safety rule. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the reversible-vs-permanent lifecycle, the recovery path, and the disambiguation requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

The single 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It implies the id must resolve to exactly one task via the disambiguation rule, but never states the identifier format or that a UUID is required — the schema's pattern is left to speak for itself.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Moves the task to the trash') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling restore_task. An agent can distinguish it from archive_done_tasks, remove_task_from_sprint, and update_task without opening any 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?

Names the triggering condition ('when the user asks to remove or delete a task'), the recovery alternative (restore_task), and an explicit exclusion rule ('If multiple tasks match... ask the user to pick one — do not guess'). This is full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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