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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the delete is soft, the task is hidden rather than removed, and the change is reversible. This tempers the destructive hint in a way the agent could not infer from structured data alone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (soft, restorable) comes first. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a required idempotency_key, the description is too thin. It omits the idempotency contract, workspace scoping, and what a caller gets back, which matters for a write operation touching tasks.

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 only 40% across 5 parameters, yet the description explains none of them. It does not mention the required idempotency_key, the workspace_id scoping rule, brand_id, or the odd 'query' override object, leaving the agent to rely on sparse schema text. This fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('soft-delete a task') and adds the distinguishing scope ('hidden but can be restored'), so an agent knows this is not a hard purge. It does not name any sibling for differentiation, but the operation itself 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as aidelly_update_task (to modify) or aidelly_get_task/aidelly_list_tasks. The description never states when a soft-delete is preferable to other mutating tools.

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