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 genuine context beyond them: no undo, an Administrator-only permission requirement, and a specific conflict failure mode when trashed descendants remain in the breakdown. These are the operational details an agent cannot infer from the hint flags.

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 DESTRUCTIVE marker, then prerequisites, then failure mode, then the safety instruction. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant 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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers safety profile, authorization, prerequisite ordering, and failure behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'id'. The description adds that the id must reference a trashed (not live) task, which mildly sharpens the schema's 'Id of the trashed task' but adds little new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('permanently delete a task that is already in the Trash') and explicitly separates it from the sibling delete_task, which only trashes live tasks. An agent can distinguish purge_task from delete_task and restore_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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('a live task must be deleted (delete_task) first'), the ordering constraint against descendant trashed tasks, and a directive to confirm with the user before calling. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all stated.

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