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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: the deletion is permanent and it propagates across "all storage layers." It does not cover auth requirements, cascade effects on related bundles/edges, or whether the operation can be undone.

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 sentences, no filler. The destructive effect and scope are front-loaded in sentence one, and sentence two is purely a routing disambiguation rather than padding.

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 single-parameter delete with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema field, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. No output schema exists, but a delete confirmation needs little explanation; the only minor gap is what happens to dependent task data when the memory is removed.

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 100% — the taskId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the full-UUID-or-8-char-prefix format — so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, matching, or ambiguity-resolution detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 ("Permanently delete a task memory"), names the identifier used (by ID), and gives scope ("from all storage layers"). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling muninn_memory_delete and situates itself in the task workflow alongside muninn_task_add/update/complete.

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 clause "Same as muninn_memory_delete but named for the task workflow" tells an agent which sibling to prefer when operating on tasks versus generic memories, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g., use muninn_task_complete or muninn_task_snooze instead when the goal is archival rather than removal).

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