delete_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds. It discloses that non-todo tickets produce a warning, children are reported but not deleted, dangling references need a follow-up sweep, and the deletion is recoverable from git history. This gives the agent essential behavioral expectations before invoking the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then adds only high-value behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and the procedural instructions are logically ordered without excessive detail.

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 deletion tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the main operation, edge-case behavior for non-todo tickets, child handling, required follow-up cleanup, and reversibility. No critical operational context is missing.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not explain ticket_id beyond the schema's own string type and title. The connection between 'a ticket' and ticket_id is implicit rather than explicit, leaving format, source, and linkage behavior 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a ticket.' It further differentiates behavior for non-todo tickets and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying that child ticket deletion is not automatic. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit procedural guidance: call delete_ticket on each child to cascade, and call sweep_blocked_by after all deletions. It does not state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but since no sibling tool performs the same deletion operation, the usage context is clear.

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