Permanently removes a task from the board and logs a delete event; the task data cannot be recovered.
删除一个任务。会同时登记一条 delete 事件（任务数据不可恢复）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | 任务 id（必填） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important behaviors: the data is unrecoverable and a delete event is logged as a side effect. It omits permission requirements and whether related records are affected, so it is strong but not complete.
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 with the action front-loaded and the destructive consequence immediately following. Nothing is wasted.
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, non-annotated tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical risk (irreversibility) and the audit side effect. It leaves the 'actor' parameter and any authorization/related-data behavior unexplained, so it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 coverage is only 50%: task_id is documented in the schema but 'actor' has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning to either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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+resource combination ('删除一个任务') that is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the highly relevant sibling archive_done, though the irreversibility note implicitly distinguishes it from archiving.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given siblings like archive_done and restore_archived, the description should say to prefer archiving when reversibility is desired, but it leaves that inference entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.