jira_delete_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'permanently' to clarify the deletion is irreversible, which is valuable context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the issue doesn't exist), or response format, leaving significant gaps 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete') and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and the permanence of the action.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions permanence but omits critical details like required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., impact on linked issues), or what the response looks like. This leaves the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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 the parameter 'issueKey' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a Jira issue'), with the adverb 'permanently' adding specificity about the nature of the deletion. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'jira_update_issue' by focusing on removal rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), consequences of deletion, or suggest alternatives like archiving. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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