Deletes a sub-step from a Microsoft To Do task. Use only when the user explicitly requests deletion; this action is irreversible.
删除任务的某个子步骤（不可恢复）。只有在用户明确要求删除时才调用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | 限定在某个列表中查找 | |
| step | Yes | 步骤：序号（如 2 或“第2步”）、步骤文字（支持部分匹配）或步骤 id | |
| title | No | 任务标题（支持部分匹配） | |
| taskId | No | 任务 id（优先于 title） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds that the deletion is irreversible (不可恢复) and that it is gated on an explicit user request — information the annotations do not encode. It still says nothing about behavior when the step is not found or about partial-match collisions.
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 zero padding, front-loading the action and immediately following with the safety constraint. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential facts: what is destroyed and when it is permitted. It omits failure/ambiguity behavior, which given the schema's partial-match step resolution would be worth a sentence for a delete operation.
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 all four parameters (list, step, title, taskId) including the required 'step' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource (delete a task's sub-step) and scopes it to the step level, which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_task. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool the way the highest-scoring examples do.
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?
It gives an explicit gating condition — only invoke when the user has explicitly asked for deletion — which is real routing guidance for a destructive operation. It does not name delete_task/update_step as alternatives or state when to prefer them, so it sits below a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.