delete-issue-property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Delete an issue property' directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), usage context, or what happens post-deletion. For a delete operation, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (project_id, type_id, property_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, relationships between IDs). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 issue property' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('issue property'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-issue-property-option' or 'delete-issue-type', which could cause confusion about what specific resource is being deleted. It's adequate but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing property), exclusions, or related tools like 'get-issue-property' or 'list-issue-properties' for verification. Without any usage context, the agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema alone.

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