delete_epic

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description merely confirms the deletion without adding context about scope, irreversibility, or side effects on linked work items. The openWorldHint=true suggests external state changes, but the description does not elaborate on consequences beyond what annotations state.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary clarity, though this dimension rewards economy over completeness.

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 operation with no output schema, two required parameters, and annotations indicating open-world effects, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention what happens after deletion, whether deletion cascades to dependent entities, or any error conditions. The agent would need to rely on implicit knowledge or external documentation.

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 compensate. The phrase 'by ID' is ambiguous since two required parameters exist (project_id and epic_id). No explanation is given about what each parameter identifies or how they interact (e.g., whether epic_id is globally unique or scoped by project_id).

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 a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('an epic') with a required identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_work_item or delete_project, which act on different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions under which an epic should be deleted, or reference to related tools like update_epic for non-destructive changes. The usage context is purely implied by the name and description.

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