Deletes a single task or project from OmniFocus by ID or name. Use batch removal when deleting two or more items.
Remove a SINGLE task or project from OmniFocus. For removing 2+ items, use batch_remove_items instead (9x faster).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The ID of the task or project to remove | |
| name | No | The name of the task or project to remove (as fallback if ID not provided) | |
| itemType | Yes | Type of item to remove ('task' or 'project') |
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, yet it says nothing about what removal actually does — whether the item goes to a trash/recoverable state or is permanently destroyed, whether confirmation exists, or what happens if the id/name matches nothing. It only conveys routing and speed, which are usage guidance rather than behavioral disclosure of a destructive mutation.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the cardinality constraint front-loaded and the alternative plus its rationale in the second sentence. Every clause 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 3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers routing well but omits the consequences of the operation (recoverability, failure modes, return value). An agent still lacks enough to predict what happens after a successful or unsuccessful call.
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 id, name fallback logic, and the task/project enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., precedence between id and name, or error behavior), so the baseline 3 applies.
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') and resource ('a SINGLE task or project') with explicit cardinality scope, and names the sibling it is not (batch_remove_items). An agent can distinguish it from the batch sibling 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 when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-the-alternative rule ('For removing 2+ items, use batch_remove_items instead') and even quantifies why (9x faster). Nothing is left to inference about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.