delete-intake-issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an intake issue' implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but the description doesn't state whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, what happens to related data, or if there are confirmation steps. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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 maximally concise - a single four-word phrase that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration or redundant phrasing.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address critical questions: Is deletion permanent? What permissions are required? What happens to associated data? What does success/failure look like? The description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and informed tool usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('project_id' and 'issue_id') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 an intake issue' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (intake issue), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like 'delete-cycle', 'delete-issue-comment', or 'delete-state' - it merely restates the tool name without clarifying what makes an 'intake issue' different from other issue types.

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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for managing issues (create-intake-issue, update-intake-issue, get-intake-issue, convert-to-issue) but no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus conversion or other operations. No prerequisites, warnings, or alternatives are mentioned.

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