Delete Mod Bug Report (author)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: it deletes 'all its replies' (scope of destruction) and explicitly states 'Cannot be undone' (irreversibility). This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent understand the full impact of the action. 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The critical information (action, scope, permission, irreversibility) is front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the action, permission, and irreversibility, which are essential. However, it omits any mention of the dry_run parameter, which could be important for safe testing, and does not describe the return value or error behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should have provided at least a note about the outcome or side effects. It is adequate for a basic call but incomplete for a tool with a dry-run option.

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 description provides zero information about the parameters. The schema covers 50% of parameters (dry_run has a description, issue_id does not). Since schema coverage is moderate and the description does not compensate for the undocumented issue_id, the agent is left without guidance on what issue_id refers to or how it relates to the tool's function. This is a notable gap.

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 clear verb 'Delete' and a specific resource 'bug report and all its replies', along with scope ('from YOUR mod') and permission ('mod author/moderator only'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like reply_mod_bug and post_mod_bug, and even from hide_mod_comment. No ambiguity about what action is performed.

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?

Clearly identifies the intended user group (mod author/moderator) and the irreversible nature, implying it should be used only when permanent deletion is desired. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it, such as when a less permanent moderation action (e.g., hiding) might be preferred. Still, the guidance is mostly clear and self-contained.

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