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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond them by stating the real-world effect (the live receptionist stops performing that task on calls) and prescribing a confirmation step — context the annotations cannot convey.

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 what the tool does, then the risk disclosure, then the required pre-call behavior. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, risk, and the confirmation protocol. It omits what happens on an unknown or already-deleted taskId (idempotency behavior), a minor but real gap for a delete operation.

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%, with both taskId and agentId documented including their source endpoints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reiterates "by taskId" and adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Remove one call task from a receptionist") and adds the keying parameter (taskId). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings agent_tasks_add and agent_tasks_list, which are the adjacent operations.

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?

Provides clear operating context: this is a real mutation, and the caller must confirm with the user right before invoking. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g. agent_tasks_list to find the task first), though the schema's "Task ID from agent_tasks_list" cross-reference covers that routing.

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