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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that this is a soft-delete, that subtasks/attachments/comments/dependencies are preserved intact, the restore path (Recycle Bin UI), the data-retention window, the required permission, and the returned recycle-bin entry id. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then recoverability, then permission and return value. No redundancy and nothing wasted.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: mutation semantics, cascade behavior, reversibility/retention, permission requirement, and the return value. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single taskId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only the cascade scope ('one task... AND its subtasks') rather than syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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 ('Soft-delete one task') and immediately clarifies scope by noting it cascades to subtasks. This distinguishes it from sibling destructive tools like delete_project and delete_document without the agent needing to open 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?

The description implies usage context (recoverable soft-delete vs permanent deletion) and states a prerequisite ('Caller must have task.delete on the project'), but it never names an alternative tool or specifies when-not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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