linear_delete_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete multiple issues' indicates a destructive action but provides no information about irreversibility, required permissions, effects on related data, or partial failure behavior. This is a minimal transparency for a deletion tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that is completely focused on the tool's action. There is no wasted text or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given that this is a deletion operation with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not mention potential side effects, outcome, or conditions for use. The simple schema and single parameter are well-covered, but the lack of behavioral and usage context leaves the description incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing 'ids' as 'List of issue identifiers to delete'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter effectively.

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 'Delete multiple issues' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (issues), with the modifier 'multiple' distinguishing it from the sibling tool linear_delete_issue. It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic purpose, but does not elaborate on details like whether it's a permanent deletion or archiving.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The plural 'multiple' implies batch deletion, but the description does not explicitly mention its suitability for bulk operations or exclude other tools. No context, prerequisites, or trade-offs are provided.

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