Delete Jira issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value by stating the deletion is permanent (irreversible) and permission-dependent, which annotations do not encode. It omits the subtask side effect, which is the main unaddressed behavioral risk.

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 with zero padding, and the destructive/permanent nature is front-loaded before the caveat. 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 destructive, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essential warnings (permanent, permission-gated), which is roughly minimum viable. It falls short on the subtask behavior — an agent cannot tell whether deletion fails, cascades, or silently drops children — and gives no hint about error conditions when permissions are insufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across two parameters, the description carries the full burden and adds nothing: issueKey is never mentioned and deleteSubtasks — a default-false flag that determines whether child issues are also destroyed — goes entirely unexplained in both schema and description. That is the single most consequential parameter for this tool and it is undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("delete an issue") and qualifies it with "Permanently," which distinguishes it from state-changing siblings like jira_update_issue or jira_transition_issue. It never names a sibling explicitly, so 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?

Usage is implied by "permanently delete" — an agent can infer this is the tool for irreversible removal rather than for closing or transitioning an issue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion (e.g., "use jira_transition_issue to close instead"), and no stated prerequisite about permissions beyond a vague mention.

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