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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces permanence ('Cannot be undone') and clarifies that all works of the task are removed, but adds little genuinely new behavioral context such as permission requirements or error behavior for unfinished tasks.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: destructive scope first, irreversibility second, endpoint last. No filler, though the literal endpoint notation is marginally redundant for an agent invoking a tool rather than the REST API.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is deleted and that it is irreversible, which is what the agent needs. Minor gaps remain around behavior when the task is unfinished or unauthorized, but these are secondary to annotations.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already explains task_id and the email fallback rule. The description only mirrors task_id in the endpoint path and adds nothing about the optional email parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a precise verb and resource: permanently deletes every result/work of a task, with the endpoint DELETE /tasks/{task_id} confirming scope. The resource noun ('task's results') implicitly separates it from the other delete siblings (avatars, elements, uploads, voices), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'of a finished task' implies the precondition that the task must be complete, which is useful usage guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternatives. Usage is left mostly to inference.

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