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

Annotations only flag destructive=true and idempotent=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that: deletion is reversible via Trash, refusals are reported per-task with reasons, and restoration is restricted to the creator or a workspace admin. That is exactly the behavioral depth an agent needs before a destructive batch call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its rule, and every sentence carries information. The final sentence is somewhat convoluted ('says who can restore the rest'), costing a little readability but not enough to waste the content.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure needn't be spelled out, yet the description still explains the meaningful parts of the result (refusal reasons, restore-call naming, restore authorization). For a destructive batch tool this is complete.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents taskIds limits and the userId signed-in caveat. The description's permission rules loosely imply the userId context but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (moves to Trash), resource (one or more tasks), and the governing rule (board's delete policy), so an agent knows exactly what the operation does and that it is a soft delete rather than a permanent purge. This cleanly separates it from sibling restore_task, which the description implicitly references.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use: the caller must be the task's creator or at the workspace's task-delete floor, and it explains what happens to refused tasks. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to restore_task as the alternative for undoing, though it gestures at it by describing the restore call.

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