delete-todo-task-list

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific behavioral trait that built-in lists (Flagged emails, default Tasks) return an error, which is beyond the annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the metadata.

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 with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the tip adds critical caveats without verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, key limitation, and how to obtain the required parameter. It doesn't explain return values or error handling beyond the built-in list case, but given the annotations cover the destructive nature and the schema covers all parameters, this is reasonably complete. A minor gap is not mentioning idempotency or whether deleting a nonexistent list errors, but that's not critical.

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 each parameter (todoTaskListId, confirm, If-Match, includeHeaders, excludeResponse) is already documented with clear meaning. The description only reiterates getting ids via list-todo-task-lists, which is usage guidance rather than additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('todoTaskList object'), and clarifies it is a Microsoft To Do task list. This distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete-todo-task or delete-calendar, and the tip about built-in lists adds further scope precision.

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 it (delete a Microsoft To Do task list) and explicitly notes a limitation: built-in lists cannot be deleted and will cause an error. It also directs to list-todo-task-lists to obtain ids, which serves as a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling delete-todo-task or other alternatives, so it's not a full when-not-to-use.

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