Delete A Coordination Issue (REST V2.0)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about soft-delete, notification observer, and HTTP 200 empty body. However, there is an internal contradiction between 'soft-delete' and 'permanently delete'/ 'cannot be undone', which reduces clarity. No contradiction with 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 somewhat repetitive, stating 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' twice. It has 6 sentences, which is acceptable but could be more concise. Information about the service name and endpoint is helpful.

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 no output schema, the description explains the response (HTTP 200 empty body) and provides the endpoint and service name. However, it lacks error conditions, effects on other data, or prerequisites. The internal contradiction also detracts from completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description only reiterates the required parameters without adding new meaning or format constraints beyond the schema.

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 a coordination issue, specifies it's a soft-delete via a specific service, returns HTTP 200 with empty body, and includes the full endpoint. It is a specific verb on a specific resource, and the title differentiates it from sibling tools like 'delete_coordination_issue' without version.

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 says 'Use this to permanently delete' but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk delete or other versions. No explicit exclusions or comparison with siblings.

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