Delete an 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 largely covered structurally. The description adds useful irreversibility context ('cannot be undone') but omits the practical consequence of non-idempotency — e.g. that a repeat call on an already-deleted id will fail — and says nothing about permissions or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the destructive consequence front-loaded right after the action statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter delete, the description plus annotations cover the essential facts: what it does, what it affects, and that it is irreversible. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (nonexistent id, permission errors), but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Issue id.'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no extra meaning about the id (e.g. where to obtain it), leaving this at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 ('Deletes an issue'), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like issues_get, issues_update, and issues_create. It does not, however, explicitly name or route against any sibling.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about what to do for soft-delete/close scenarios that issues_update might serve. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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