delete_issue

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the irreversibility and collateral damage: 'takes the issue's subtasks, time entries, and history with it' and 'Redmine has no trash can.' This is a clear and high-value behavioral warning for a destructive operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose and a prominent WARNING. Each sentence adds crucial context (irreversibility, side effects, alternative) with no redundancy.

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 delete operation with one parameter, the description covers essential side effects and provides an explicit alternative, making it complete for decision-making. Since an output schema exists, no return value explanation is needed.

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 single parameter issue_id is described as 'ID of the issue to delete,' which clarifies that it refers to the issue identifier. While not deeply detailed, it provides sufficient meaning for a simple integer ID and is easy to understand.

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 'Permanently delete an issue,' which is a specific verb (delete) and resource (issue). It distinguishes itself from other issue tools by recommending a closed status as an alternative, aligning with sibling tools like update_issue.

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 warns against using for merely hiding an issue: 'Prefer moving to a closed status (e.g. Cancelled) when the goal is only to take it off the board.' This provides clear when-to-use (permanent deletion) and when-not-to-use (removal from board) guidance.

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