delete_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the single most important trait: the deletion is irreversible (取り消し不可). However, it says nothing about permission/auth requirements, whether related objects (comments, attachments, time entries) are cascaded, or whether confirmation is needed for a destructive operation.

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?

A single compact sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and the caveat in a parenthetical; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the irreversibility caveat is present. But for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, the absence of any cascade-effect, permission, or confirmation context leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0% for the single issue_id parameter, so the description would need to compensate. It never mentions the parameter, but 'issue_id' is self-explanatory from its name and type alone, so the practical cost is low. A baseline 3 reflects adequate-but-unadditive coverage.

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 names a specific verb (完全削除 - completely delete) and resource (チケット - ticket), and the scope qualifier '完全' distinguishes it from a soft-delete or status change. Combined with the tool name delete_issue, an agent can identify the operation at a glance.

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?

It explicitly steers the agent away from this tool in normal cases ('通常はステータス「却下」等を検討すること' - normally consider a 'rejected' status instead), which is real when-not-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tool (update_issue) that performs that alternative.

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