delete_version

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states 'Delete' indicating destructive action but does not disclose irreversibility, impact on associated work items, required permissions, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and two bullet points for use cases. No redundant information; every part 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?

For a simple delete action with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and use cases. However, it lacks important behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, permissions, cascading effects) that would be needed for an agent to invoke safely and correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so 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 clearly states 'Delete a version from a Yunxiao Project' with specific verb and resource, and provides distinct use cases (Remove obsolete versions, Clean up project versions), differentiating it from sibling tools like update_version and create_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?

Use cases are given ('Remove obsolete versions' and 'Clean up project versions'), which imply appropriate usage scenarios, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives (e.g., using update_version to deactivate instead).

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