delete_intake_work_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Delete' aligns. It adds detail about the expected identifier (issue field), but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or consequences beyond the action. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides moderate additional value.

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 short but includes an Args block with a superfluous parameter (workspace_slug not in schema). This reduces efficiency. The core statement is concise but the extra detail is misleading, making it average.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description should clarify what an intake work item is and whether deletion is reversible. The presence of an erroneous parameter (workspace_slug) indicates incomplete specification. The note about work_item_id helps but overall completeness is lacking.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It describes project_id as UUID and work_item_id with a specific source. However, it incorrectly lists workspace_slug as an argument not present in the schema, causing confusion. This inconsistency undermines the semantics provided.

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 the action and resource: 'Delete an intake work item by work item ID.' This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_work_item. The verb-resource pair 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 provides a specific note about using the issue field for work_item_id, which guides correct invocation. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_work_item or delete_intake_work_item itself. Context for tool selection is implied but not stated.

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