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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one piece of genuinely non-annotated behavior: deletion is blocked when active executions exist, and the scope is limited to the current project. It does not say whether deletion is permanent, what happens to related records, or whether confirmation is required.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the blocking condition; nothing is padded. The 'cet élément' phrasing is imprecise, but that is a clarity issue rather than verbosity.

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 mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should state irreversibility, scope of the deletion, and the id semantics. It covers only the active-execution guard, leaving the agent without enough to call it safely and correctly.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'id'. The description never identifies what the id refers to (a task id, and implicitly one from the current project), so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

The verb 'Supprimer' is specific, but the object is an anaphoric 'cet élément du projet courant' rather than naming a task; the agent must rely on the tool name/title to know what resource is deleted. It also does nothing to distinguish it from the many other delete_* siblings (delete_record, delete_slide, delete_collection).

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?

The only guidance is a constraint ('Les exécutions actives empêchent la suppression'), which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no mention of alternatives such as complete_task or set_task_state, nor of when deletion is inappropriate versus archiving.

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