redmine_delete_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive, irreversible nature, the safety gate parameter, the return confirmation, and the respect for a read-only mode. This covers behavioral traits beyond what annotations could specify.

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 very concise with two introductory sentences and a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value and the main purpose is 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?

The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and safety. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but given the simple destructive operation and existence of an output schema, it is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 adds meaning to both parameters: issue_id is clearly explained as a numeric Redmine issue id, and confirm_destructive is described as a safety gate that must be True to proceed. Since the input schema had no descriptions (0% coverage), this compensation is valuable, though it could provide more detail on issue_id format.

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 'Permanently delete an issue' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_delete_project or redmine_delete_group by focusing on issues.

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 mentions a safety gate (confirm_destructive) and that it honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., close_issue) or when not to use it.

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