Permanently deletes a task from Microsoft To Do when the user explicitly requests it, using task ID or title and list name.
永久删除任务（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 | |
| 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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by stating the effect is irreversible (不可恢复) and by imposing a user-consent requirement, which is meaningful context beyond the structured hints.
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 waste; the destructive/permanent nature is front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage condition.
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?
Given three parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it does, that it is irreversible, and when to call it. It could be marginally richer by noting behavior when multiple tasks match title, but that is a minor gap.
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 the schema already explains list, title, and taskId, including the precedence of taskId over title. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource (永久删除任务) with the added modifier that the deletion is permanent. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling delete_step, but the resource (task) is unambiguous alongside the other task-level tools.
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 precondition: only invoke when the user explicitly requests deletion. This is a clear when-to-use gate that an agent can act on directly, and it prevents accidental destructive calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.