taiga_delete_epic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two critical traits: permanence/irreversibility and cascade behavior (contained stories persist, merely unlinked). It omits permission requirements and what happens to tasks/issues on those stories, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the destructive semantics and side effect front-loaded before the irreversibility warning. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what gets destroyed and what survives. Missing permission/confirmation context is a minor gap but not a blocking one.

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 the single epic_id parameter is documented in-schema as 'Internal epic ID (not ref #)'. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('delete an epic') and adds the key scope detail that stories are not deleted but unlinked. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. taiga_unlink_story_from_epic or taiga_delete_user_story), so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Irreversible' implies caution and 'stories survive, unlinked' hints at why one might choose this over other removal paths, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. unlink instead of delete). Usage is inferable, not instructed.

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