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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is partly covered; the description adds that the deletion is permanent ("définitivement") and imposes a confirm-first protocol that annotations cannot express. It does not state behavior on a non-existent ID or what the response looks like, but the value added beyond structured data is genuine.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good, but the second sentence is grammatically incomplete ("Demande confirmation avant"), reading as a truncated instruction rather than a finished one. Minimal wording is achieved partly by omission rather than by tight writing.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the definition covers permanence and the confirmation requirement, which is most of what an agent needs. Edge-case behavior (unknown ID, return value) is left unstated but there is no output schema demanding explanation.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("ID de la tâche"), so the schema fully documents it and the description adds nothing further. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Supprimer définitivement une tâche" gives a specific verb (delete) plus resource (task) and adds the permanence qualifier, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling dandori_delete, leaving ambiguity about how this task-specific delete differs from the generic one.

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?

"Demande confirmation avant" provides a real precondition — the agent should confirm with the user before invoking — which is useful usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to delete versus closing/updating a task, and the sentence is truncated ("avant" with no stated object), so the recommendation is only implied.

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