gtasks_delete_task_listPermanently deletes a Google Tasks list and all its tasks; confirm first, as deletion cannot be undone and default lists are protected.
Permanently delete a task list AND all the tasks in it. Cannot be undone. The default list cannot be deleted. Confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | ID of the list to delete (from gtasks_list_task_lists) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds information annotations cannot convey: the deletion cascades to all contained tasks, it is irreversible, and the default list is protected. The confirmation requirement also signals a human-in-the-loop expectation, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive outcome and cascade, followed by the irreversibility warning, the exclusion, and the confirmation requirement. No filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is destroyed, that it is permanent, what cannot be targeted, and that user confirmation is required. Nothing material is missing.
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% and the single parameter already documents its provenance ('from gtasks_list_task_lists'), so the description need not re-explain list_id. Baseline 3 applies because the description adds no additional semantics about the identifier.
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 and resource ('Permanently delete a task list') plus the cascade scope ('AND all the tasks in it'), which clearly separates it from the sibling gtasks_delete_task that removes a single task. An agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.
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?
Gives a required precondition ('Confirm with the user first') and a hard exclusion ('The default list cannot be deleted'), which prevents the most likely misuse. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., gtasks_delete_task for single tasks), but for a delete tool the exclusions are the practically important part.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.