Delete a recurring task and all its uncompleted future instances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The recurring task template's ID, as returned by create_recurring_task. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The recurring task's ID, as returned by create_recurring_task or list_recurring_tasks."New value: +"The recurring task template's ID, as returned by create_recurring_task."Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "5c3d2e1f0a9b8c7d6e5f4a3b2c1d0e9f"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"The recurring task's ID, as returned by create_recurring_task or list_recurring_tasks."Input schema / properties / id / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "5c3d2e1f0a9b8c7d6e5f4a3b2c1d0e9f"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying that uncompleted future instances are also deleted. This clarifies the scope beyond a simple 'delete' and helps set expectations about the 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?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and includes the most important behavioral nuance. There is no redundant wording or extraneous detail.
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 one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the essential behavior, the schema covers the parameter fully, annotations cover the destructive nature, and an output schema exists. Nothing critical is missing.
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?
The input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter, including its type, example, and origin ('as returned by create_recurring_task'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('recurring task') and precisely scopes the action to 'all its uncompleted future instances.' This makes it easy to distinguish from delete_task, delete_recurring_calendar_event, and other deletion tools.
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 description clearly identifies when to use this tool: when deleting a recurring task and its future uncompleted instances. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_task for non-recurring tasks, but the recurring-task context is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.