Delete Coordination Issue

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

Even though annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: permanence ('cannot be undone'), the repeat-call 404 result, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond the structured hints and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and is information-dense. Minor redundancy exists between 'Confirm the target id' and 'id must identify an existing parent record,' but overall every sentence serves a purpose and the structure is logical.

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 description covers purpose, prerequisite resolution, permanence, error patterns, required parameters, and API endpoint. It omits success response details, but no output schema is defined and delete operations commonly return empty bodies. Annotations provide the safety context, so the overall picture is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented as 'URL path parameter' and 'Query string parameter.' The description only restates that id and project_id are required, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a Coordination Issue from the system.' It clearly distinguishes the delete operation from list/show siblings by explicitly telling the agent to confirm the id with the matching show or list tool, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also warns about repeat-call behavior (404) and common failure statuses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives for create/update, but the resolution instruction implies when not to use this tool.

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