Delete ticket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the cascade to comments and attachment links, the total absence of trash/restore, and the API-key plus confirm=true precondition. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before committing an irreversible action.

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 sentences, each load-bearing: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, and the safer alternative. The destructive consequence is front-loaded, and there is no padding.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the definition covers the whole decision surface: scope of deletion, irreversibility, auth requirement, confirmation flag, and a preferred alternative. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (ticketId, confirm) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm semantics ('confirm set to true') but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a ticket') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('together with all its comments and attachment links'). It also names the sibling alternative, so an agent can distinguish it from set_ticket_state without opening either schema.

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 gives the when-not condition: 'Prefer set_ticket_state with "closed" or "invalid" unless the record really has to disappear.' This is a direct routing rule with a named alternative and the deciding criterion.

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