Discard an isolated copy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: what is destroyed (copy AND baseline, plus resumed tasks sharing that copy), a refusal rule for active copies, and the reassuring fact that the source project is preserved. It stops short of noting irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded and the constraints following. No filler or repetition 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the destructive scope, refusal condition, and preservation guarantee, leaving only minor gaps such as permissions or irreversibility wording.

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 0% and the single taskId parameter carries no schema text, so the description is the only source of context. It establishes that the operation targets a task, which implicitly scopes the ID, but adds no detail on the taskId itself (format, whether it must reference a finished task, etc.).

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/discard) and resource (the copy and baseline of a finished task), including the resumed-tasks-sharing-copy case. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from closely related siblings like antigravity_cancel or antigravity_cleanup.

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?

Implies usage ('of a finished task') and states a precondition ('active copies are refused'), which helps the agent understand when it will fail. However, it names no alternatives or when-not conditions relative to cancel/cleanup siblings, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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