Permanently delete a Taiga user story by its internal story ID. Use this irreversible action only after confirming with the user, especially before bulk deletions.
Permanently delete a user story. Irreversible — confirm with the user before bulk deletions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| story_id | Yes | Internal story ID (not ref #) |
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 must carry the full behavioral load; it correctly discloses that the operation is permanent and irreversible, which is valuable. It stops short of stating whether child tasks/comments are also removed, what permission level is required, or what the response contains.
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 sentences, both front-loaded: the action first, the safety warning second. No filler whatsoever.
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 single-parameter destructive call with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts (what it deletes, that it's permanent). It could add cascade effects or required permissions, but the core is adequate.
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?
Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully ('Internal story ID (not ref #)'), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, but none is needed.
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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a user story'), which cleanly separates it from taiga_update_user_story and from the similarly-named delete tools for epics, issues, and wiki pages. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 line about confirming with the user before bulk deletions gives one concrete usage caution, but nothing frames when to choose deletion over an alternative (e.g., closing/archiving a story) or what prerequisites exist. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.