Delete a task from a Kanbn board by its ID. Optionally force removal without confirmation to streamline cleanup.
Delete a task from the Kanbn board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| force | No | Force deletion without confirmation | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only says 'Delete', implying a permanent destructive action without confirming it. It does not state whether deletion is irreversible, whether the task file is removed from disk, whether the force parameter bypasses a confirmation prompt, or how deletion differs from archiving.
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?
The single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices valuable context about permanence and alternatives that could have been added in one or two extra clauses.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell whether deletion is recoverable, when force is required, or how this differs from archive/restore flows — information critical to avoiding irreversible data loss in a Kanban board tool.
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 fully documents path, force, and taskId including meaningful descriptions such as 'Force deletion without confirmation'. The description adds no additional parameter context, 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 ('Delete a task from the Kanbn board'), making the core action unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool kanbn_delete_simple_task, which performs a similar deletion on simple tasks, nor from kanbn_archive_task, which could be a safer alternative for the same resource.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as kanbn_archive_task (non-destructive removal), kanbn_delete_simple_task, or kanbn_remove_all. There is no mention of prerequisites like the board needing to be initialized or the task file needing to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.