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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds real context beyond them: the id is never reused, the response reports logged minutes lost, and time-tracker entries live in a separate store and are untouched. The storage-boundary note in particular prevents an agent from assuming logged time is destroyed with the task.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and effect, then the side effect on logged minutes and storage boundary, then the alternative. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: irreversibility, id non-reuse, what the response reports, what is deliberately not affected, and the safe alternative. No material gaps remain.

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 100% and the single id parameter already carries a format example (NOVA-12). The description only restates that the lookup is by id, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 with scope: 'Delete one task by id, permanently.' The permanent/non-reusable qualifier and the explicit contrast with task_done make it distinguishable from siblings such as task_done and project_delete without opening 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'Use task_done to keep the record.' That is a clear when-to-use-this-instead rule for the most likely confusion. It doesn't address other plausible siblings (task_update, task_move), so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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