kaiten_delete_checklistDelete a checklist and all its items permanently from a Kaiten card. Requires the card ID and checklist ID to irreversibly remove the entire checklist and its contents.
Delete checklist and all items (irreversible). checklistId from kaiten_get_checklist or kaiten_get_card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | Card ID | |
| checklistId | Yes | Checklist ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by stating the operation is irreversible and that it deletes all items, which conveys cascade behavior an agent needs to know before invoking it.
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?
Two short sentences convey the action, the scope, the irreversibility, and the parameter source. There is no filler, and the most important information is 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?
The description covers the tool's destructive effect, the cascade deletion behavior, and the source of the key parameter. Given that there is no output schema and annotations already handle the safety profile, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could mention what response to expect.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by telling the agent how to obtain checklistId, which is a helpful provenance hint not present in the schema. cardId remains minimally described, but its meaning is reasonably inferable from the resource context.
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 and resource ('Delete checklist') and clarifies scope ('and all items'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like kaiten_delete_checklist_item and kaiten_rename_checklist without requiring the agent to inspect siblings.
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?
It gives a useful usage instruction by stating where checklistId comes from ('kaiten_get_checklist or kaiten_get_card'), but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as kaiten_delete_checklist_item. The usage context is implied rather than made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.