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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that: this is a soft delete, so the record is not permanently purged. It stops short of saying whether the task can be restored, whether it is removed from linked entities/notes, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the key behavioral qualifier front-loaded; every word earns its place and there is 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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the destructive profile, so much of the burden is lifted. However, for a destructive mutation the description omits cascade effects (what happens to attached entities or notes) and whether the soft-deleted task is recoverable, which are the details an agent most needs before calling it.

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 there is only one required parameter ('id'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format hints (e.g., ID format) or error behavior for invalid/nonexistent IDs, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (delete) and resource (task) scoped to the CRM, and the parenthetical '(soft delete)' clarifies the semantics of the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like delete-company-tool or detach-task-from-entities-tool, but the name/description pairing makes the target unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus when to use detach-task-from-entities-tool or update-task-tool, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer that this removes the task record entirely rather than unlinking it from an entity.

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