seerr_delete_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data' merely repeats the annotation without adding new behavioral context such as permanence, required permissions, or effects on related data (e.g., comments). No contradiction exists, but no additive transparency is provided.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it contains redundancy: 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'this deletes data' convey the same information. Despite this minor redundancy, it is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool.

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 with one parameter and has annotations and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of parameter semantic detail and usage guidance leaves the description minimally adequate rather than fully complete. An agent could likely invoke it correctly, but only with gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the issue_id parameter. It relies solely on the parameter name to convey meaning, which is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions. The description fails to confirm what issue_id represents or how to obtain it.

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 'Delete issue' clearly, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like seerr_get_issue, seerr_create_issue, and seerr_set_issue_status. The additional 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data' reinforces the action without ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. The implication that it should be used when deleting an issue is present only in the tool name, not in the description itself.

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