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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, so the description adds meaningful context by specifying that attached content is deleted and that the action is irreversible. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no filler. The most important facts—permanence, scope, and the preferred alternative—are packed efficiently and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete enough. The schema covers the parameter, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers what is destroyed and the alternative. No output schema is needed for this kind of action.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already describes it fully, including an example format and the fallback to an issue id. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action (permanently delete), a resource (an issue), and the scope of destruction (everything attached to it). It distinguishes itself from archive_issue, its closest sibling, by highlighting irreversibility.

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 explicitly names archive_issue as the preferred alternative and warns that this operation cannot be undone. It does not spell out the exact condition for choosing delete over archive, but the permanence warning makes the tradeoff clear.

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