taiga_delete_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the critical trait — irreversibility — which is exactly the risk signal an agent needs for a destructive tool. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether related comments/attachments are cascaded or orphaned, or failure behavior on a nonexistent ID.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the destructive nature is front-loaded. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting useful structure, but nothing written is wasted.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential irreversibility but omits permissions, cascade effects, and confirmation expectations. Adequate, but a gap remains for an irreversible operation.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema fully documents it, including the important disambiguation that it is the internal ID rather than the ref number. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable given 100% schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete an issue'), which is unambiguous against get/update/create issue siblings. It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as update_issue for non-destructive status changes, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., closing or updating the issue instead). The only implicit signal is 'Permanently', leaving scope decisions to inference.

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