Jira DELETE Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the default output format (TOON), mentions that most DELETE endpoints return 204 No Content on success, provides API reference, and lists common operations with their specific paths and parameters. It doesn't cover authentication requirements or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (output format, common operations, API reference) and front-loads the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the bulleted list of operations could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 destructive DELETE tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: it covers purpose, usage examples, output format options, common operations with specific endpoints, and success behavior. It could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or error handling, but overall provides substantial context for safe usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining outputFormat options and providing context about TOON format benefits, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding of the four parameters beyond what the schema already documents thoroughly.

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 tool's purpose as 'Delete Jira resources' with specific verb+resource, and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on DELETE operations versus GET/PATCH/POST/PUT methods. It provides concrete examples of what can be deleted (issues, comments, worklogs, attachments, watchers).

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for DELETE operations on Jira resources) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings (jira_get, jira_patch, jira_post, jira_put) by HTTP method. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide alternative recommendations for specific scenarios.

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