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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing cascade destruction of answers and uploads, the triggered-email refusal rule, and the staging model on running/paused projects. It also warns that responses return staged rows with ids the caller did not pass in. It loses a point only for not clarifying how long staging persists or whether the refusal is checked at delete time or commit time.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive consequence and well organized into constraint, workflow, and id behavior. However, the final sentence restates the staging point already made earlier ('On a running or paused beta project the deletion is only STAGED'), which is redundant and could be merged.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers destruction scope, preconditions, project-state branching, the staging lifecycle, and id echo behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or to know it should defer to commitTaskChanges.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning not in the schema: during staging both the live id and the staged id are accepted, and the response echoes the staged id with liveVersionId linking back. That is actionable id-semantics an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 ('Deletes a single step from a task') and immediately scopes it apart from siblings like deleteTask, updateStep, or removeStepMedia by making clear it removes the step and all its submitted answers and uploads.

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 explicit when-not conditions (refused if it would leave a triggered-email step first; blocked entirely on finished or archived projects) and names the exact alternatives for the staged workflow: commitTaskChanges to publish, revertTaskChanges to discard, getBetaTasks with version 'unpublished' to inspect.

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