delete_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side-effect (issues are left without a target version) and implicitly conveys that deletion removes historical link via the alternative recommendation. This goes beyond a bare delete.

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?

Three concise sentences plus an Args line. Every sentence adds value: action, consequence, alternative, and parameter definition. 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 simple one-parameter delete tool with an output schema, this description covers the necessary context: what it does, its side-effect, and how to avoid losing historical links. No major gaps remain.

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 version_id is explicitly described as 'ID of the version to delete,' providing meaning beyond the schema's type/title. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Delete a version') and clarifies the main effect on referenced issues. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool update_version by explaining the alternative approach.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when not to use delete: 'To take a version out of circulation without losing the historical link, prefer update_version with status=closed.' This clearly signals the alternative and the trade-off between deletion and preserving history.

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