delete_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it. It discloses irreversibility ('Nothing undoes this'), the full scope (comments, attachments), 404 behavior for live tickets, 403 for wrong workspace, and the intentionally undistinguished 404. This is rich behavioural context that will prevent misuse.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence is purposeful and front-loaded with critical information. The first sentence states the destructive action and scope, then goes on to prerequisites and error semantics. No fluff; the redundancy ('Permanently destroy' / 'Nothing undoes this') reinforces the gravity of the operation without wasting words.

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?

Given the complexity and irreversibility of the operation, the description covers prerequisites (must be archived), sources for parameters, error conditions (403/404 distinctions), and appropriate use cases. With no output schema, it also hints at what happens on success (the ticket is destroyed) and what errors look like. It is complete for an agent to invoke safely.

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 only 50% (only task_uuid has a description). The description compensates by explaining exactly how to choose workspace_uuid: 'must be the workspace the ticket belongs to — from get_ticket before it was archived, or get_board for the board it was on.' It also explains error cases that depend on workspace selection. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 destroy a ticket that is ALREADY in the trash, along with its comments and attachments.' This is a specific verb+resource+condition that distinguishes it from siblings like archive_ticket. It further clarifies that live tickets return 404, so the 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'It is the second step and never the first: archive_ticket, then this.' It also provides strong guidance on what to keep vs. destroy: 'Keep this for tickets that should never have existed... Anything a person might want back can simply be left archived.' This fully differentiates from archive_ticket and other alternatives.

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