Delete todo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nuance of permanence, but it does not disclose side effects like whether related history or version records are affected, or whether any preconditions apply. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not richly informative.

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 one short sentence with no filler. The core action and object are front-loaded, and every word 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 operation with annotations already flagging the destructive nature, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the input requirement and behavior. The only minor gap is not mentioning what the operation returns or whether it is reversible beyond 'permanently,' but this does not block correct invocation.

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% and the sole parameter 'id' is already documented with an example. The description's phrase 'by id' adds no semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('remove'), a resource ('todo'), and the exact scope ('by id'). The word 'permanently' clearly distinguishes this from state-changing siblings like todo_complete or todo_release, which alter status rather than 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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as whether todo_complete or todo_release would be more appropriate for non-destructive status changes. The description implies only that this is for permanent removal, but it does not explicitly rule out or redirect to any sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.