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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavior beyond them: the task moves to Trash rather than being erased, remains restorable for 30 days, requires an Administrator or Project Manager, fails on child/dependant tasks, and explains the last-child summary-task side effect.

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 definition is dense and front-loaded, with most sentences carrying real behavioral constraints. There is minor redundancy in the standalone 'Administrator or Project Manager' sentence and the first sentence is long, but 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 destructive single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers retention period, permissions, recovery path, conflict rules, and summary-task side effects. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

There is only one parameter, id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as 'Task id'. The description does not add format or selection guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a task') and immediately scopes it as a soft delete into Trash with a 30-day restore window. By naming restore_task and list_trash, it distinguishes this from restore and permanent-deletion siblings such as purge_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?

Gives explicit recovery context via restore_task and list_trash and states the key when-not condition: conflict when the task has WBS children or dependants, requiring re-parenting or deletion first. It stops short of explicitly routing to purge_task for permanent deletion.

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