delete_ticket

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), a hard exclusion case, the refusal behavior, and an auth requirement (read_write key required; read key refused and limited to list/read).

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?

Front-loads the destructive warning in the first two short sentences, then layers exception, precondition, and auth. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the mid-sentence rationale ('so that what opened it does not open it again') is slightly verbose.

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 2-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential caveats: irreversibility, exclusion case, prerequisite check, and API key requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% with only 2 parameters, both fully documented in the schema itself (ticketId accepted as ID or '#14', projectId). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete a ticket and its thread'), and immediately notes the scope includes the thread. It differentiates from the sibling move_ticket by naming it as the alternative path for the excluded case.

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 covers when-not-to-use: a ticket opened by a Strategic Briefing cannot be deleted and must be moved to dismissed via move_ticket. It also states a precondition (read 'deletable' on the ticket first) and the consequence of ignoring it (refusal).

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