google_tasks_deleteDelete a specific Google Tasks task using its task ID. Specify account and task list if needed to remove the task from the correct location.
Delete a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task ID. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| tasklistId | No | Task list ID (default @default). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete a task.' without mentioning permanence, side effects on subtasks, required permissions, or reversibility. While 'delete' implies destruction, the description omits critical behavioral context.
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?
The description is extremely brief, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides only a bare phrase with no structure or additional information. It fails to earn its place by adding any value beyond the title.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what happens after deletion, whether the tasklistId is required for certain scenarios, or any error conditions. An agent would have no context for calling this tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (taskId, account, tasklistId) are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning or context about parameters, but the schema sufficiently covers them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description 'Delete a task.' is essentially a tautology with the tool name (google_tasks_delete) and title (Delete task). It states the verb and resource but does not distinguish from siblings like google_tasks_complete or google_tasks_create, and adds no specificity beyond the title.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to related task tools such as google_tasks_list or google_tasks_complete. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.