Delete a task permanently by its ID and return the removed task; use it to remove unwanted entries when no undo is needed.
Delete a task. There is no undo. Returns the removed task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The task id. |
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 carries the full burden and does disclose the critical trait: "There is no undo," which is exactly the destructive-behavior warning an agent needs. It also states the return value ("Returns the removed task"), though it omits permission requirements and side effects such as whether subtasks cascade.
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, zero waste, with the destructive warning front-loaded right after the purpose. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and return value. Only minor gaps remain, such as permission needs or cascade behavior, which are not essential to invoke it correctly.
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 (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.
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 ("Delete a task") that is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like complete_task or update_task. It does not explicitly name or contrast with an alternative, but the operation is self-evidently different from the other task 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as complete_task or update_task, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the hard-removal path from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.