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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description still adds real value by stating the operation is permanent/irreversible, names the required `Manage Queue` permission, and gives the API-key scope `feedback:bugs:write`. It stops short of saying what happens to attached comments or whether a 404 occurs for a missing shortId, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four terse fragments, front-loaded with the action and object, then the permission gate, then irreversibility, then the scope. No filler and nothing an agent must scan past.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile (irreversible), authorization (Manage Queue, feedback:bugs:write) and target (a bug report), which is most of what an agent needs. Remaining gap is the undocumented required shortId, which is arguably a schema defect rather than a description one.

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?

The description says nothing about any parameter. The two optional parameters (account, workspace) are well documented in the schema, but the single required parameter 'shortId' has no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate by explaining its format or where to obtain 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a bug report') and the 'bug' qualifier plus the tool name distinguish it from fr_delete_request and other delete siblings in the same family. An agent can tell exactly what object this operates on without inspecting 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?

The permission requirement and irreversibility imply this is a last-resort operation, but the description never states when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., fr_moderate_bug, fr_set_bug_visibility) or any precondition such as resolving vs. deleting. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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