Delete issues

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing that comments are deleted too, that the operation is a single undo step, and that attached proposals are discarded by default unless acceptAllElements is set. That is exactly the kind of side-effect context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of permission/auth requirements or confirmability.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its cascade, then the default/opt-in behavior, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, though the middle clause is syntactically packed.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape inline and covers cascades, undo, and the proposal default. The main gap is undoName, whose effect on the undo step is left unexplained.

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 67%, so the schema already documents the issues and acceptAllElements parameters. The description only adds the consequence of acceptAllElements ('the model stays as it is'), while undoName is never explained in either place. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries most of the weight.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Deletes issues') and immediately widens scope to include their comments, which separates it from sibling deletion tools like delete_elements or delete_attributes. An agent can tell what is removed and what cascades without opening the 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?

It explains the default proposal behavior and the acceptAllElements escape hatch, which is genuine usage context, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (delete_elements, delete_project_info_fields, etc.) or any prerequisite such as resolving names to GUIDs first. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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