delete-state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects related entities (e.g., issues in that state). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 that front-loads the core action and target. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, and context.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as success/error responses, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or safety warnings. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information needed for safe 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 both parameters ('project_id' and 'state_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or relationships between parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 a state from a project' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (state from a project), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete-cycle' or 'delete-module' by specifying 'state' as the resource. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'update-state' in terms of when deletion vs. modification is appropriate.

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., whether the state must be empty of issues), consequences (e.g., what happens to associated data), or when to choose deletion over updating a state. With siblings like 'update-state' and 'create-state', the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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