Delete an existing status by providing its ID. If tasks are assigned to it, specify a reassign_to status to move them before deletion.
Delete a status by ID (requires owner or admin role). If tasks use this status, provide reassign_to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status_id | Yes | The status ID to delete | |
| reassign_to | No | Status ID to reassign tasks to before deleting (required if tasks use this status) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the role requirement and the reassign-to precondition, which go beyond the schema. It does not explicitly mention permanence or failure behavior, but the core destructive behavior is clear.
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 main action first and no filler. Every clause adds useful information: the operation, the role requirement, and the conditional reassignment guidance.
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 covers the action, the role gate, and the key conditional parameter. It lacks explicit mention of permanence or error responses, but the schema and description together are mostly sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the reassign_to condition but adds little new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('status'), and a scope ('by ID'), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_status, update_status, and list_statuses.
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 gives clear usage context: delete a status by ID, and provides conditional guidance to include reassign_to when tasks use the status. It also states the owner/admin role prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.