Delete Issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered in structured data. The description adds almost nothing beyond 'existing'—it does not mention irreversibility, whether subtasks/comments are removed, permission requirements, or any side effects.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity means it omits details that other dimensions assess as missing.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema plus rich annotations, so the definition is not wholly inadequate. However, for a destructive deletion tool, an agent would benefit from at least a note about permanence or scope, which is absent.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself providing the issue key format and examples. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('Jira issue'), making the operation immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby mutation siblings such as jira_update_issue or jira_transition_issue, but the name-plus-description combination is clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use deletion instead of alternatives like jira_update_issue or jira_transition_issue, and no prerequisites or warnings are stated. The agent is left to infer that this is a permanent destructive operation from the name and annotations alone.

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