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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains the item leaves the list and won't be re-proposed, and critically that an already-converted task is also deleted – a non-obvious cascading side effect worth disclosing.

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?

Purpose and the two key side effects are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the app analogy and confirmation note following. Four short sentences carry no obvious filler, though the app-cross analogy is slightly superfluous for an agent.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, the cascade to tasks, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing essential is missing, though it could state return/confirmation semantics more explicitly.

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%, so both parameters (workspace_id, actionable_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. format, where to obtain the id), so the baseline 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 ('Descarta') plus resource ('un accionable de un recap') and clarifies scope ('de un recap'), which separates it from get_meeting_actionables and confirm_meeting_actionable by function. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives implied usage context ('Es lo mismo que la cruz del recap en la app') and a procedural instruction ('Pedí confirmación antes'), but never states when to prefer this over confirm_meeting_actionable or how it differs semantically from a task deletion. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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