delete_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that deletion immediately clears comments, reactions, and attachments and that the action cannot be undone. This is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'delete' statement, though it does not mention permissions or response behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action 'Delete an issue.' Every phrase adds value: the cascade effect and irreversibility are concise and clearly structured, with no filler.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is deleted, the immediate cascade, and irreversibility. It falls slightly short by not mentioning any success/failure indicators or whether the issue ID must exist, but these are typical implicit expectations.

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 schema covers workspace_id with a description but leaves id undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, failing to explain the required 'id' parameter. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate, but it doesn't, leaving the most critical parameter underspecified.

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 'Delete an issue,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_issue, update_issue, and get_issue by focusing on deletion and adding the cascading cleanup of comments, reactions, and attachments.

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 implies usage for permanent deletion with the caution 'cannot be undone,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like update_issue for closing or deactivating an issue. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use the tool, so guidance is only implied.

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