Delete a Linear issue

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

The destructiveHint annotation already establishes that this mutates/deletes; the description adds 'permanently' to signal irreversibility. It does not disclose side effects such as deletion of associated comments or relations, or permission requirements, though the simple scope and annotation soften that gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded action, no filler. It is as concise as a single-parameter delete tool needs to be.

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, the core action and irreversibility are stated, and destructiveHint covers safety. However, the description omits id semantics and any guidance on choosing this over archive_issue, so it is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain that id refers to a Linear issue identifier or give any format guidance. The agent must infer the meaning from the tool name and parameter name.

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?

States the exact operation ('delete') and resource ('issue'), adding 'permanently' to distinguish from non-destructive actions like linear_archive_issue. The title and description together leave no doubt about what tool this is.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The word 'permanently' implies contrast with archive, but the description never says to prefer linear_archive_issue for reversible removal and provides no conditions.

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