redmine_issue_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP DELETE method and the confirm requirement, but it does not state that the deletion is permanent and irreversible, nor does it describe potential cascading effects on related data (e.g., comments, relations). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and the critical safety requirement. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the confirm requirement is placed prominently.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the confirm safeguard. However, it omits warnings about irreversibility and side effects, which are important for an agent to understand before invoking a destructive tool. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 no information about the id parameter beyond the schema, and it only restates the confirm requirement that is already captured in the schema's description ('Must be true to perform destructive action'). With schema description coverage at 50%, the description does not compensate for the missing documentation of the id parameter, though its meaning is intuitive.

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 deletes an issue, names the specific HTTP endpoint (DELETE /issues/:id.json), and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools (e.g., redmine_project_delete, redmine_user_delete). The verb 'Delete' and resource 'issue' are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the action.

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 states the requirement for confirm:true, which is a usage guideline for the confirm parameter. However, it does not provide context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to archive vs. delete) or any exclusions. The name and endpoint imply it is the permanent-delete operation, but no explicit guidance is given.

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