delete_issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful detail beyond annotations: deletion is soft and recoverable via trash, which tempers the destructive hint. It stops short of describing child-item effects, permissions, or permanence.

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?

Sentence one and sentence two restate the same action ('Delete an issue. Delete an issue using its unique identifier.'), which is wasted space. The third sentence earns its place by disclosing the trash/restore behavior, and the action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome (soft delete with restore possibility) and the annotations cover the safety profile. Missing only edge-case context such as effects on linked items or required permissions.

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?

One required parameter; the schema already carries a description ('The issue identifier.') even though the reported coverage is 0%. The description's 'using its unique identifier' is consistent but adds no syntax or format detail, and the nested path wrapper is not explained.

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 an issue') with the identifier-based invocation. It does not explicitly name siblings like restore_issue or post_batch_delete_issues, so the agent must infer the soft-delete relationship from the phrase 'moved to the trash'.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling is stated. The presence of post_batch_delete_issues for bulk deletion and restore_issue for recovery is never mentioned, leaving the agent without routing guidance.

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