Delete Ticket

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical context: the deletion is irreversible and removes associated messages, tags, and custom field values. This goes beyond simple annotation flags and warns of collateral effects.

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, front-loaded with the HTTP method and action. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial caveats and an alternative. No wasteful words.

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 one-parameter delete operation with clear destructive effects, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the endpoint, irreversibility, associated data removal, and a safer alternative. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for delete operations.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a clear description. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific details, which is acceptable when schema covers it fully. 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 states a specific verb+resource: permanently delete a ticket by ID. It also clarifies the scope of deletion (associated messages, tags, custom field values) and distinguishes from the soft-delete alternative via Update Ticket.

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 advises using trashed_datetime via Update Ticket for a soft-delete instead, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. an alternative. This is a direct when/when-not comparison.

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