Delete a bug (hard delete)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is permanent and that bugs have no history, making the record irrecoverable. It also contrasts with update_bug's history-preserving behavior. However, it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or response details, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main action, and every sentence earns its place: the second sentence clarifies the alternative. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral transparency, but completely omits parameter semantics. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, this is a moderate level of completeness; the gaps are noticeable but not fatal to understanding the tool's role.

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 provides bare parameter names (id, slug) with zero description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of what each parameter means, whether both are needed, or how they identify the bug. This is a critical gap for an agent to correctly construct the invocation.

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 the tool permanently removes a bug record, specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from update_bug by noting that for marking a bug as resolved, update_bug should be used instead, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool (permanent deletion) and when not to (for 'I resolved this', use update_bug with status='resolved'). This provides clear guidance on alternatives and is a model of usage direction.

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