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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral warning that deletion should be a last resort because completion is usually intended, going beyond the annotations, though it does not detail irreversibility, auth requirements, or side effects.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the crucial usage warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple destructive mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the key risk of misuse. However, it leaves the sourcing and meaning of listId and taskId unexplained, which is a clear gap for an agent needing to invoke correctly.

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 only 33%: mailbox is documented, but listId and taskId have no descriptions. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage and leaving two required parameters semantically opaque.

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 'Delete' and resource 'task', and explicitly contrasts with completing, which disambiguates from complete_google_task. However, it does not say 'Google task', so ambiguity with delete_outlook_task remains and it relies on the tool name/title for full precision.

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 states the condition to use it ('only delete when they say delete') and the alternative behavior ('completing') that is almost always intended. This is a strong when/when-not rule that directly addresses the most common misuse.

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