Remove multiple tasks or projects in a single call to avoid repetitive individual removals and reduce API overhead.
PREFERRED: Remove multiple tasks/projects in ONE call. 9x faster than individual remove_item calls. Always use this for 2+ items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Array of items (tasks or projects) to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It discloses performance ('9x faster') but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, whether confirmation is required, or what happens if some items in the batch fail — critical for a removal 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with 'PREFERRED' so the routing signal lands first. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information: preference, rationale, threshold.
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?
Routing and scope are complete for a batch-delete tool, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say whether deletion is irreversible and how partial failures are reported. Those gaps matter more here than for a read 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 coverage is 100%, so the nested item fields (id, name fallback, itemType enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the structured data, which is the baseline case.
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 ('Remove'), resource ('tasks/projects'), and batch scope ('multiple ... in ONE call'). It plainly distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_item by contrast, so an agent can route 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 an explicit decision rule: use this for 2+ items, with remove_item as the implied single-item alternative, plus a justification (9x faster). Both the when and the when-not are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.