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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds material behavior: the task is recoverable for 30 days via restore_task, after which a scheduled job physically deletes it, and it warns not to guess among ambiguous matches. This is substantial extra context and is consistent with 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary use, followed by the key consequence and an important disambiguation caveat. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 one-parameter destructive action, it covers use trigger, retention/restoration path, and ambiguity handling. It does not discuss what happens on invalid IDs or the return value, but no output schema exists and these are minor for this tool.

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 0%, and the description never directly explains that id must identify the task to trash. However, the single id parameter is largely self-explanatory from context and the schema provides a UUID format and pattern, keeping the gap modest.

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?

Description opens with 'Use this when the user asks to remove or delete a task' and clearly states it moves a task to the trash, a soft-delete distinct from permanent deletion and from completing a task. The mention of restore_task helps separate it from related workflow tools.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('remove or delete a task') and instructs to ask the user to pick one when multiple tasks match. It does not explicitly contrast with complete_task or remove_task_from_sprint, so it stops short of full 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.