Delete Version

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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, and non-readOnly, but the description adds critical undisclosed behavior: irreversibility, clearing version/target_version/fixed_in_version fields on referencing issues including subprojects, the manage_project_threshold permission requirement, and the 'Version not found' error for inherited versions. This goes well beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loads permanence and irreversibility, then side effects, alternative, constraint, and authorization in tightly structured sentences. Every clause earns its place by informing a destructive decision or preventing a misuse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, prerequisites, permission threshold, and an alternative route. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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% and both parameters have inline descriptions with discovery hints. The description adds a usage-level constraint about project_id needing to own the version, but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Permanently delete' and resource 'a version of a MantisBT project,' and distinguishes itself from alternatives like update_version. The sibling tools include create_version, update_version, and get_project_versions, and the description makes the distinction explicit.

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?

Explicitly names update_version with obsolete=true as the non-destructive alternative, explains the inherited-version constraint, and points to get_project_versions with inherit=false for listing eligible versions. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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