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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the soft-delete effect (disappears except in audit history), the permission gate, the runtime failure condition, and the remedy. This is well beyond a bare 'deletes an issue'.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then prerequisites and failure handling. No sentence is filler; each adds a distinct constraint.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, permissions, failure mode, and workaround. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('The issue's key, e.g. BRD-42'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond referencing sibling tools that surface the key, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (deletes) and resource (issue), then immediately clarifies the semantics of that deletion: the issue stops appearing everywhere except its own audit history. An agent can distinguish this from edit_issue or edit_issue_status without opening the schema.

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 explicit preconditions and routing: requires canDelete (pointing at get_issue/list_issues to check), and it fails while the issue is handed to an agent, with the alternative named (cancel_agent_run first). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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