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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by revealing cascade deletion ('Subtasks go too') and clarifying the bulk scope of each deletion mode, which the schema alone would not 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action and selection modes are front-loaded, and the cascade behavior is stated as a separate, impactful note. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with three modes, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, the description covers the key usage surface and a critical side effect. The main gap is that it does not explicitly say whether the three modes are mutually exclusive or what happens when no parameter is provided, especially since there are no required parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only semantic documentation for the parameters. It maps 'tasks' to references, 'date' to deleting every task on a date, and 'filter' to deleting all completed tasks. It does not explain mutual exclusivity or exact formats, but it gives each parameter a concrete role.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('tasks'), then enumerates three distinct selection modes: by ref, by date, and completed. This clearly separates it from siblings like delete_goal and makes the tool's scope immediately actionable.

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 intended use is implied: delete tasks when tasks need removal. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as update_tasks, and the description relies on the tool name and verb to convey when it should be selected.

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