Remove a TickTick task by moving it to trash; set forever:true to permanently delete an already trashed task. Requires taskId and projectId.
Deletes a task. By default it moves to the trash; set forever: true to permanently delete it (must already be trashed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task id | |
| forever | No | Permanently delete instead of moving to trash | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id, or "inbox" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the important trait that deletion is soft by default (moves to trash) and only permanent when opted in, plus a precondition on the permanent path. It omits permission requirements, effects on subtasks/dependencies, and how the permanent path fails if the task isn't trashed.
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 compact sentences, front-loading the default behavior and then the opt-in exception. Every clause carries 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers default vs permanent behavior and the key precondition. It is nearly complete but leaves out recoverability (restore_task), permission needs, and any cascading effects on related entities.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the schema only says forever means 'permanently delete instead of moving to trash', while the description adds the non-obvious constraint that the task must already be trashed to use it.
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 and resource ('Deletes a task') and the resource noun cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_project, delete_tag, and delete_column. The added trash-vs-permanent distinction further sharpens what the operation actually does.
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?
The description gives the condition that selects the permanent variant ('set forever: true') and a precondition ('must already be trashed'), which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives such as restore_task for undoing a soft delete, so it is not a full when/when-not routing statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.