Permanently remove a Microsoft To Do task from a specified list by providing list and task ID. Use completion instead to finish tasks without deletion.
Permanently delete a task (no recycle bin). To finish a task, use update_task(completed=true) instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | Yes | List display name (case-insensitive) or list id | |
| task_id | Yes | Task id from list_tasks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial irreversibility detail: 'no recycle bin.' This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying that deletion is permanent and not recoverable, which is valuable behavioral context.
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 sentences with no fluff. The most important fact (permanent deletion, no recycle bin) is front-loaded, and the alternative is given immediately after in a single clear directive.
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 two-parameter delete operation, the description is complete: it explains the destructive nature, provides the key routing to update_task, and the schema covers all parameters. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is required.
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 schema fully documents both list and task_id. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the tool's action: permanently delete a task, with the critical qualifier that there is no recycle bin. It distinguishes itself from update_task by explicitly noting that completing a task should use update_task(completed=true) instead.
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 an explicit alternative and the condition under which it should be used: to finish a task, use update_task(completed=true). This directly helps an agent choose between delete_task and update_task, the most likely sibling-tool conflict.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.