Delete a list by name or ID. Lists containing reminders are refused unless delete_reminders=True, which also deletes their reminders and subtasks; undoable.
Delete a list (name or id). A list that still holds reminders is refused unless delete_reminders=True, which deletes those reminders (and their subtasks) too. Both can be undone with the undo tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | Yes | ||
| delete_reminders | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the destructive cascade (reminders and their subtasks are removed), the guard that blocks deletion of a non-empty list, and the reversibility via the undo tool. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the failure condition, then recovery. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant with the name or schema.
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 2-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description covers the essential decision points (guard, cascade, undo). It omits whether confirmation or special permissions are required and does not describe the response, though the absence of an output schema lowers that expectation.
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 0% and neither parameter has a meaningful description, yet the prose compensates: 'list' accepts a name or an id, and delete_reminders is explained both as the override for the refusal guard and as a cascading delete of reminders plus subtasks. Default-false behavior is implied rather than stated, keeping it just under a 5.
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+resource ('Delete a list') and clarifies the accepted identifier form ('name or id'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like create_list and rename_list, and the cascade semantics further sharpen the meaning of 'delete'.
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 the concrete condition under which the call fails ('a list that still holds reminders is refused unless delete_reminders=True') and names the recovery path ('undone with the undo tool'). It stops short of explicitly directing the agent to delete_reminder for single-item removal or noting when to prefer rename/keep, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.