delete_work_package

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true. The description adds context by stating 'Permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone through this server', which reinforces destructive behavior. 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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action and followed by important usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what happens on success or error (e.g., if ID doesn't exist). Given the destructive nature and annotations, the description is adequate but could be more complete about side effects or return behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not add any details about the single 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (integer, exclusiveMinimum >0). The description simply says 'by ID' without specifying type or constraints.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'work package by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by specifying 'one work package' and advising verification beforehand.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'only for an explicit deletion request after verifying the target with get_work_package'. It also warns about destructiveness and irreversibility. No alternatives are mentioned, but the guidance is clear.

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