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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it names the additional collateral (the associated calendar event is deleted too), reiterates irreversibility in plain language, and specifies the two-step dry-run/confirm protocol. These are the exact traits an agent needs before firing a destructive call.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the destructive nature and side effect, followed by the safer alternative and the confirm protocol. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, irreversibility, alternative, and call sequence. The only gap is failure behavior (e.g., unknown task_id or missing permissions), which is minor and arguably inferable.

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% and the confirm parameter already documents the dry-run requirement, so the schema carries most of the load. The description reinforces the confirm semantics in prose ('Call without confirm to see what would be removed') but adds no new detail about task_id beyond the schema.

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') and immediately names the side effect ('and its calendar event'), which distinguishes it from set_task_status and update_task in the sibling list. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool when the goal is only to finish a task ('use set_task_status instead, which keeps the record'). It also prescribes the exact call sequence: call without confirm first, then again with confirm.

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