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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely structured. The phrase "for good" usefully emphasizes irreversibility beyond the hint, but the description doesn't say whether subtasks/history are cascaded or whether any recovery exists.

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 short front-loaded sentences, the permanence warning first, zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title.

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 one-param mutation with no output schema, the definition covers intent gating and permanence but leaves cascade effects and parameter sourcing unstated, which are the main risks an agent faces before calling it.

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?

The single parameter task_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its format, where to obtain it (e.g., get_tasks), or what happens on an invalid id. With one undocumented param, the description had room to compensate and doesn't.

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?

"Delete a task for good" gives a specific verb plus resource and signals permanence, which separates it from update_task and the non-task delete siblings (delete_goal, delete_subgoal, delete_focus_point). It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

"Only when the user clearly asks to delete it" gives a real usage gate. However, it offers no contrast with alternatives (e.g., update_task for edits) and no clarification about sibling deletes or partial vs. full removal.

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