Remove one agent-usage record from an issue, by the id that get_agent_usage returns. For correcting a record's numbers, re-send it with report_agent_usage instead — the same source + externalId updates in place. Requires permission to edit the issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Record id, as returned by get_agent_usage. | |
| key | Yes | Issue key, e.g. 'UK-1'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key prerequisite ('Requires permission to edit the issue') and clarifies the id provenance, but it does not state whether the deletion is permanent or irreversible, nor describe error behavior or success output. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral detail unspecified.
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 three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the alternative guidance is concise, and the permission note is a single short sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter delete operation with full schema coverage, the description covers the core action, the alternative for corrections, and a prerequisite. It is nearly complete; the only addition might be a note on the success outcome (e.g., no return value), but that is not critical given the 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that the id comes from get_agent_usage, which is helpful, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the full schema 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 explicitly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'agent-usage record', and specifies the context 'from an issue'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the id source (get_agent_usage) and the alternative for corrections (report_agent_usage). Purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it says to use report_agent_usage instead for correcting numbers, and it notes the permission requirement for editing the issue. This clearly directs the agent to the right tool for the task, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
