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

With annotations already covering destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, and openWorldHint, the description adds substantial value: what is permanently deleted (including cached findings), that it is available in any execution state, what side effects it does not have, and that repeated deletion returns not_found. This is rich behavioral 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by availability and important exclusions. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete for a destructive delete operation. It covers scope, availability, side effects, non-effects, and idempotency behavior, leaving no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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% and the only parameter task_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds useful scoping context (current user, connected organisation) but no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (permanently deletes) and resource (automated task) with scope (owned by the current user in the connected organisation) and includes cached findings. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_task_status or list_tasks, and clarifies it is not an innovation deletion.

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 clear contextual conditions: available in any execution state, and it lists things it does not do (cancel upstream analysis, delete the innovation, withdraw a service request). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when to use one over the other, so it falls short of the top score.

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