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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so well: it explains the destructive effect, notes the audit-history exception, and states the required permission. It does not cover cascading effects or reversibility, but for a one-parameter delete operation the key behavioral facts are present.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the permission note. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the behavioral effect, and the authorization requirement. It does not describe the success/failure response or discuss sibling alternatives, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter, issueKey, is already documented with a format example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's coverage.

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 clearly states the action 'Deletes an issue' and adds a useful behavioral clarification: the issue stops appearing everywhere except its audit history. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling mutating tools like edit_issue or create_issue, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied: call this when an issue needs to be removed. The permission prerequisite, 'Requires canDelete', and the pointer to get_issue/list_issues provide useful context, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool to prefer instead, leaving selection largely to inference.

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