Remove a maintenance task

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it states the side effects (stops coming due, removes reminders), what is preserved (past completions remain in item history), what is unrecoverable (the task can't be brought back with these tools), and adds a procedural safeguard ('Confirm with the person first'). That is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a destructive operation needs.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, the wrong-tool exclusion with the correct redirect, then consequences and the confirmation prompt. The key routing information comes first and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this covers use cases, alternatives, irreversibility, and side effects. Only minor omissions remain, such as whether recently_deleted offers any recovery path, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 single parameter is already documented as 'The task's id, from list_maintenance'. The description adds no further syntax or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a maintenance task') and immediately scopes it to the cases that justify deletion (item gone, added by mistake), which separates it from sibling tools like complete_maintenance. An agent can distinguish it from list_maintenance or complete_maintenance without opening a 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?

It gives an explicit when-not rule — 'This is not for a task that was just done — use complete_maintenance, which schedules the next one' — and describes the legitimate use cases (item gone, added by mistake). The only gap is that it doesn't mention recently_deleted or restore paths as an alternative, but the primary routing decision is fully covered.

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