delete_version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating deletion cannot be undone and by documenting the dependency-based rejection behavior.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The irreversible nature and the usage restriction are front-loaded, so an agent gets the critical information immediately.

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?

Given rich annotations, full schema descriptions, and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete for a destructive tool. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly reinforce the preview-first confirm workflow, but the schema already documents that behavior.

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 both parameters are well documented in the schema, including the preview/confirm behavior. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Delete a version." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations such as create_version, update_version, and get_version without ambiguity.

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?

It gives an explicit rejection condition: deletion is refused while any work package in any project uses the version, including as its "found in" version. That is useful when-not guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as checking list_versions or get_version first.

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