删除待办

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial nuance that destructive behavior is opt-in via purge=true, while the default is a reversible soft delete that sets the status to deleted. It does not cover secondary effects (e.g., child items, idempotency, permission requirements), which keeps it from a 5.

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 clauses with the default behavior front-loaded and the exceptional path (purge=true) second. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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 mutation with no output schema and a destructive annotation, the description covers the single decision that matters — soft vs. hard delete. It omits what happens on an unknown id and what the call returns, but those are secondary for this tool's shape.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does explain the semantics of the boolean `purge` flag (true = permanent deletion, absent = soft delete), which the schema alone does not. The `id` parameter's format/origin is left unstated, but its meaning is obvious from the tool name.

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?

Names the operation precisely: deletion of a todo, with the two modes (soft vs. permanent) spelled out. An agent can distinguish this from todo.update, but the description never explicitly says to use update for status changes rather than delete, so sibling differentiation relies on inference.

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 default-vs-purge split implicitly tells the agent which mode to pick when it needs a permanent removal, but there is no stated when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to todo.update (which can also set a deleted status) or any warning about when purge is warranted.

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