anon_delete_todos_todo_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: the required permission scope (todo:manage) and the scoping behavior (project auto-derived from the API key), both of which affect whether the call will succeed.

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?

Four compact lines: verb+resource first, then permission, then endpoint, then scoping note. Every sentence is relevant, though restating the HTTP path partially duplicates the tool name.

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 one-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite permission, and project scoping. It omits the return/deletion semantics (e.g., what else is destroyed), but the robust destructive/reset annotations leave little uncovered.

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%, so the description carries some burden. It usefully explains that no projectId is needed because the project is derived from the API key, but it says nothing about the meaning or format of the one actual parameter (todoId), which the schema documents only as a minLength-1 string.

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 (删除/delete) and resource (待办/todo), and the embedded endpoint DELETE /api/projects/{id}/todos/{todoId} pins down exactly which object is removed. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling patch_todos_todo_id and post_todos_todo_id_complete without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite (需 todo:manage 权限) and clarifies that the project scope comes from the API key, which is genuinely useful context for invoking it. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the sibling delete/completion tools or any exclusion conditions, so usage is only implied.

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