delete_taskMove the task to the recycle bin. It stops firing immediately and can be restored for 30 days with restore_task; after that it is unrecoverable. Credits already spent are not refunded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id (UUID), as returned by create_task or list_tasks. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It thoroughly discloses that the task goes to a recycle bin, stops firing immediately, remains restorable for 30 days, becomes unrecoverable afterward, and does not refund spent credits. This is excellent transparency for a mutation tool.
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 concise sentences each deliver unique information: the primary action, immediate effect with recovery window, and the financial caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.
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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides all essential operational context: what happens on delete, how long recovery lasts, what is unrecoverable, and the credit refund policy. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single id parameter, including its type and source. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation completely.
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 states the specific action: moving a task to the recycle bin rather than permanently destroying it. It names the resource and includes key differentiators like 'stops firing immediately', so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like delete_destination and pause_task.
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 implies the usage context by noting the soft-delete behavior and that restore_task can recover it for 30 days, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer delete_task over pause_task or how to decide between destructive alternatives. The caveats are useful but mostly behavioral, not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.