Permanently delete an open or completed todo by its slug to remove it from your persistent SQLite todo list.
Permanently delete a todo, open or done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by stating the deletion is permanent/irreversible and applies to todos in any state, which goes beyond the bare annotation. It says nothing about confirmation requirements, dependent items, or error behavior.
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?
A single short sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though it is terse enough that the scope qualifier carries a lot of weight on its own.
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 delete with destructiveHint coverage and no output schema, the essentials (permanent, any state) are conveyed. It stops short of describing side effects such as removal of nested/sub-items or whether the action is hard-deletion vs archival, which an agent invoking a destructive tool would benefit from.
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 0% and the single required parameter 'slug' has only a pattern and maxLength constraint, no meaningful description. The description offers no information about what the identifier refers to or where it comes from, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a todo') and adds scope with 'open or done', which usefully clarifies that state does not gate deletion. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (todo_done / todo_update), so identification is clear but not sibling-differentiated.
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 word 'permanently' implicitly contrasts with todo_done (mark complete) and the 'open or done' phrase implies deletion works regardless of state, so usage is inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.