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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the danger profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context above that bar: who is authorized to delete. It stops short of describing side effects on related data (e.g., comments/subtasks) or the response, but for a covered mutation this is solid.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the destructive action is front-loaded before the permission rule and the alternative. Every clause 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 3-param destructive delete with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, permission, and the main alternative. It could add one clause on whether deletion is reversible or what happens to dependent records, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 all three parameters (task_id, agent_id, in_workspace), so the schema already carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The only parameter-adjacent detail in the description (status='cancelled') actually belongs to a different tool, so it adds no semantics for this call.

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+resource ("Delete a task") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling update path by noting that closing a task is done via status='cancelled' rather than deletion. An agent can tell this apart from tasks_update/tasks_get without opening a 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?

Provides an explicit when-not with a concrete alternative: if the intent is to close rather than remove the task, set status='cancelled'. It also states the authorization condition (creator or workspace owner/admin), so the agent knows whether the call is even permitted.

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