Delete Version

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact cascade (version, target_version and fixed_in_version fields cleared on all referencing issues, including subprojects when versions are inherited), irreversibility, and the access level required (manage_project_threshold, default manager).

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?

Four short paragraphs, front-loaded with the destructive warning, and every paragraph covers a distinct concern (effect, alternative, ownership constraint, permissions). Slight redundancy with the schema's discovery hints keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers everything an agent needs before calling a destructive mutation: side effects, irreversibility, an escape-hatch alternative, the inheritance trap, and permission requirements.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description still adds real meaning by constraining project_id to the version's owning project and explaining that inherited versions will fail, though its discovery hint for get_project largely repeats the schema's own hint.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a version of a MantisBT project') and immediately marks it as irreversible. It is clearly distinguishable from its nearest sibling update_version, which it names as the non-destructive alternative.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not: to retire a version without touching issues, use update_version with obsolete=true. It also states the precondition that the version must belong to project_id itself and that inherited versions must be changed via the parent project, with the exact error MantisBT returns.

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