delete_work_package

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating exactly what is destroyed alongside the work package and by disclosing version-dependent behavior: pre-17.6 all descendants are deleted, while 17.7+ only deletable descendants go and the rest are re-parented. Combined with the explicit 'cannot be undone' warning, this is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 tight sentences: the destructive scope first, then the irreversibility and version caveat. No filler, and the highest-stakes information is front-loaded.

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, this covers cascade effects, irreversibility, and version-dependent descendant handling. It is slightly short on operational context such as required permissions or what the preview mode returns, but nothing essential to calling it safely 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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself is unusually rich (the confirm parameter explains preview-vs-apply and the approval step; work_package_id distinguishes numeric id from display id). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 is warranted — the schema, not the prose, does the work.

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 ('Delete') plus resource ('work package') and immediately scopes the cascade (time and cost entries, relations, attachments, history). That makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like delete_relation, delete_attachment, or update_work_package.

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?

Implicitly frames usage by spelling out the consequences of deleting, but never says when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., detaching a relation via delete_relation, or closing instead of deleting). No explicit prerequisites, permission notes, or when-not-to-use guidance.

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