Delete issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so 'Permanently' and 'Irreversible' largely restate structured data. The one piece of added value is the user-confirmation requirement, which is a workflow constraint the annotations cannot express. No detail on collateral effects (comments, links, attachments) or what happens when subtasks exist.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive nature front-loaded and the safety instruction immediately after. No filler, no redundancy.

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 one-required-param tool with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, this covers the essentials. The only gap is scope of destruction — whether comments, links, and attachments go with the issue — which an agent might reasonably want before confirming with a user.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the non-obvious 'required if it has any' rule for deleteSubtasks, so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description adds nothing about issueKey format, site selection, or the subtask flag, which is acceptable given the coverage baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Permanently deletes') and resource ('an issue'), which is unambiguous and easily distinguished from siblings like jira_update_issue or jira_transition_issue. It stops short of naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'Confirm with the user first' is a genuine precondition, which is more than most definitions offer. However, there is no guidance on when deletion is preferable to alternatives (e.g., closing via jira_transition_issue or jira_update_issue), and no mention of the subtask prerequisite that the schema imposes.

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