deleteIssue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete issue' without explaining permanence, cascading effects on related data (e.g., issue relations, time entries, attachments), required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It omits crucial information, and the brevity does not serve the agent; it is closer to the 'Process' example where under-specification is penalized.

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 the tool's destructive nature, nested parameter structure, and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to convey scope, side effects, or any operational context, making it inadequate for safe and 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema specifies pathParams with format and issueId, but the description does not mention them, leaving the agent without additional context about formats, required fields, or usage nuances.

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 issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deleteProject and deleteUser, though it could benefit from specifying that deletion is by issue ID.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updateIssue, createIssue, or archiveProject. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, so the agent receives no usage direction.

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