TODO を削除

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value: it discloses the soft-delete mechanism and the 14-day retention before physical purge. It omits other relevant behavior such as idempotency, what happens when deleting an already-deleted TODO, or any permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core behavior (soft delete via deletedAt) leads and the follow-on cleanup detail follows immediately.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, no annotations), and the description does cover the key lifecycle behavior. Still, it says nothing about the id parameter, return value, or failure modes, and with no annotations those gaps are not covered elsewhere.

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?

There is one parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate but never mentions the identifier at all. It does not clarify what the id refers to or its expected format, leaving the schema's bare string entirely undocumented.

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 operation (soft delete) and its mechanism (writing deletedAt) for the TODO resource. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like complete_todo, snooze_todo, or update_todo, which also mutate a TODO, so an agent must infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over complete_todo, snooze_todo, or update_todo, nor any prerequisite (e.g. ownership or existing state). The delete intent is only implied by the words 'soft delete'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.