Soft-deletes a task: it stops appearing in list_tasks but the record is retained rather than permanently removed. Fails if the task was already deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The task's ID, as returned by create_task or list_tasks. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite the destructiveHint annotation indicating a destructive operation, the description adds crucial nuance: the deletion is soft and reversible in the sense that the record is retained. It also discloses the failure behavior for already-deleted tasks. This goes well beyond the annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'Soft-deletes a task'. Every clause earns its place: the effect on list_tasks, the retention of the record, and the failure condition. No fluff.
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 single-parameter tool with output schema and annotations, the description fully covers behavioral semantics (soft-delete, list visibility, failure condition). It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.
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 provides full coverage with a clear description for the 'id' parameter referencing create_task or list_tasks. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 opens with 'Soft-deletes a task', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It clearly distinguishes from permanent deletion or other task operations by explaining the soft-delete semantics, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you want a task to stop appearing in list_tasks but still be retained. It also warns that the operation fails if the task is already deleted, which is a useful precondition. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but no direct alternative exists among siblings.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.
All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.
With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.
The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.
