Delete Issue

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

Given the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or any side effects on linked issues or associated data. The word 'existing' implies the issue must exist, but this is trivial and does not materially enhance understanding beyond the annotation.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could have included more behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and a destructive annotation, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks important context about consequences and prerequisites, which would be expected for a destructive action even with annotations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is only adequate.

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?

The input schema covers the sole parameter issue_key with a pattern and example, providing full semantic clarity. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies without any extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('Jira issue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_update_issue or jira_get_issue. The title and description are consistent, and the full sentence 'Delete an existing Jira issue' leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or potential consequences (e.g., permission requirements, cascading deletions). The description only states the action itself, leaving the agent with no contextual guidance for tool selection.

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