ghl_project_delete_recurring_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the exact endpoint and HTTP method, the required OAuth scope (projects/tasks.recurring.write), the v3 version header, and the important caveat that the docs do not describe cascade behavior.

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?

Roughly half the text is shared API-level boilerplate about batch-get RBAC, lexorank position strings, search updatedAt sorting, and rruleOptions field naming — none of which an agent needs to invoke a delete. The actual purpose statement is buried after that preamble rather than front-loaded.

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 endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies endpoint, method, scope, effect, and an explicit cascade unknown. The only real omission is differentiation from the location-level recurring-task delete.

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% and the locationId parameter already explains channel-specific requirements and that it must not go in path/body/headers. The description adds nothing per-parameter, 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 tool-specific paragraph states a precise verb+resource: 'Deletes a recurring task definition so future occurrences stop being created,' which is meaningfully narrower than deleting a task instance. However, it never distinguishes itself from its near-identical siblings ghl_location_delete_recurring_task or ghl_project_delete_task, so an agent must infer which recurring-task delete to use.

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 'so future occurrences stop being created' implies the effect and thus the reason to use it, and the shared preamble says 'treat every delete as destructive.' But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what happens to already-generated occurrences, and no routing to the location-scoped delete sibling.

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