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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important trait: deletion is scoped to the caller's npub, preventing deletion of others' tasks. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, or any idempotency/error behavior. This is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the scoping nuance is stated succinctly. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the simplicity of the delete operation, an output schema exists (so return values are documented), and the key authorization behavior is mentioned. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could mention permanence or side effects for extra safety.

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 coverage is 67% (task_id and npub described, dpop_token not). The description adds meaning to npub by explaining its role in the WHERE clause for scoping, and clarifies that task_id alone is insufficient. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, though it doesn't mention dpop_token.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one task.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like goodearth_task_save (create/update), goodearth_task_set_done (mark done), and goodearth_task_list (list). The scoping note further clarifies the exact operation.

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 (a delete operation) and gives a security constraint about npub scoping, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer deletion over alternatives like task_set_done or what prerequisites exist. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving some inference to the agent.

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