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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: deletion is irreversible from MCP, the cascade removes subtasks (with the Sales & Billing / installments example), and 409 version_conflict must be resolved by re-reading rather than overwriting. That is concrete, actionable behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive purpose, then irreversibility, then the version/WRITE protocol — a sensible order. It loses a little to redundancy: the cascade behavior is stated twice (title plus body) and the WRITE block is dense, but nothing is padding for padding's sake.

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 destructive, version-guarded mutation with no output schema, the description covers every decision an agent must make: whether to call it, what else gets destroyed, how to obtain the version, and how to recover from a conflict. No material gap remains.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining that version comes from 'your latest read' and enumerating acceptable sources (get_issue, list_comments, list_sprints, get_doc, read_file), which is meaningful operational guidance the schema does not give.

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 ('Delete an issue') and distinguishes it from siblings such as delete_comment, delete_doc and delete_attachment by naming the issue object explicitly. The cascade scope ('its subtasks are deleted with it') further pins down what this tool does that no sibling 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?

Gives an explicit gate — 'Only delete when the user asked for it' — and an instruction to warn before deleting a parent, plus the prerequisite that version must come from a prior read. It never names a non-destructive alternative (e.g. transition_issue to close instead of delete), so the when-not guidance is cautionary rather than comparative.

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