jira_delete_issue

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

No annotations exist to cover safety profile. The description does not state that deletion is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to related data. For a delete operation, this is a significant omission. The description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 very short, but it includes some extraneous routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.') that are not directly relevant to tool usage. The parameter description is minimal. Overall, it is concise but not optimally structured; it wastes space on routing info.

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 tool is a delete operation, the description lacks critical information such as irreversible effects, required permissions, error scenarios, and return value details. Although an output schema exists, the description does not reference it or explain what the returns convey. The description is too sparse for an AI agent to use confidently.

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 sole parameter 'arguments' has 0% schema description coverage. The description only adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal semantic value. It does not specify required keys, format, or examples. This is insufficient for proper usage.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate it deletes a Jira issue, using verb 'delete_issue'. However, the description doesn't explicitly mention 'Jira issue' as the resource, relying on the name and the 'Jira connector operation' prefix. This is effective but slightly vague without the full resource context.

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 this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jira_transition_issue, jira_update_issue). No prerequisites, side effects, or when-not-to-use are mentioned. The description only provides routing details, which do not aid in tool selection.

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